PANS/PANDAS: When a child's brain alarm won't switch off

Richard Moore
Feb 11
18 min read

The morning everything changes

Some children go to bed one way and wake up another. Obsessive-compulsive behaviours arrive at speed. Tics spike. Anxiety flares. Eating can abruptly narrow to a frighteningly small range - or stop altogether. That cliff-edge onset is the hallmark of Paediatric Acute-Onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome (PANS), a syndrome defined by the sudden arrival of OCD and/or severely restricted food intake, accompanied by additional neuropsychiatric symptoms from at least two other domains - things like separation anxiety, cognitive decline, sleep disturbance, urinary symptoms, or motor abnormalities including tics (Thienemann et al., 2017; Wilbur et al., 2019; AAP, 2025). Crucially, the diagnosis also requires clinicians to rule out other explanations - this isn’t a label you slap on; it’s a conclusion you work toward by exclusion.

Paediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal infections (PANDAS) is often discussed as a subset of PANS in which symptom onset or exacerbations track with group A streptococcal (GAS) infection - the bacterium behind “strep throat.” Neurological features, particularly tics, can be prominent. The proposed mechanism draws on parallels with Sydenham’s chorea, a well-established post-streptococcal movement disorder in which the immune system’s antibodies, originally directed at the streptococcal bacterium, mistakenly attack structures in the brain’s basal ganglia (Wilbur et al., 2019; Leonardi et al., 2024).

🔬 What are the basal ganglia?: Deep inside your brain sit clusters of nerve cells called the basal ganglia. Think of them as the brain’s traffic control centre for habits, movement, and emotional responses. They help you do things automatically - walking, filtering intrusive thoughts, regulating the urge to check or repeat actions. When these circuits are disrupted, you can see exactly the kinds of symptoms that characterise PANS: compulsive behaviours, tics, emotional dysregulation, and motor difficulties.

Even within the PANDAS framework, you quickly hit the messy reality of paediatric neuropsychiatry: contested diagnostic boundaries, inconsistent biomarkers, and studies that do not always line up neatly with the certainty families understandably want. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published its first clinical report on PANS in 2025, acknowledging both the reality of the presentation and the limitations of the current evidence base (AAP, 2025; Wilbur et al., 2019; Sigra et al., 2018).

Why the “One Test” story rarely works out

Parents often ask for a single laboratory result that makes the whole picture click into place. But major clinical reviews keep returning to the same point: PANS is diagnosed by clinical pattern plus careful history plus systematic differential diagnosis - not by one definitive blood marker (Wilbur et al., 2019; Thienemann et al., 2017; AAP, 2025). The AAP clinical report states plainly that the condition lacks disease-specific biomarkers.

💡 Analogy: Diagnosing PANS is less like taking a pregnancy test and more like assembling a complex jigsaw puzzle. You’re looking at the shape of the onset (sudden, not gradual), the combination of symptoms (OCD plus at least two other domains), the timeline (did anything trigger this?), and then systematically checking whether something else - thyroid disease, autoimmune encephalitis, a brain tumour, or Tourette syndrome - could explain the picture better. There is no single piece that completes the puzzle on its own.

That matters because the label “PANS” can accidentally become a shortcut. If everything is assumed to be infection-driven, the temptation is to keep escalating antibiotics. If everything is assumed to be psychiatric, medical triggers can be missed, and families can feel dismissed. The evidence base calls for a layered approach: treat what you find, support what you can, and hold your confidence in proportion to what the data actually show (Sigra et al., 2018; Wilbur et al., 2019; Cooperstock et al., 2017).

Who gets it, and why food becomes urgent

PANS and PANDAS are most often described in school-aged children - classically prepubertal for PANDAS, although adolescent cases exist. Males appear to be more commonly affected, particularly in PANDAS cohorts, with some studies reporting male-to-female ratios of roughly 3:1 (Wilbur et al., 2019; Leonardi et al., 2024). But knowing the typical demographic does not give you a simple risk profile that predicts who will develop it, nor a prevention recipe proven in trials.

Where nutrition suddenly becomes non-negotiable is not in the epidemiology - it’s in the physiology. Abrupt restrictive eating is not a soft symptom. It is one of the two cardinal features that can define PANS (alongside OCD). A 2025 study from the Stanford PANS Clinic found that over 56% of 130 children with PANS developed abrupt-onset restricted food intake during the flare that brought them to the clinic. Of those children with restricted intake, 48% showed selective eating, 41% had low appetite or interest in food, and 37% developed fears of aversive consequences such as choking, vomiting, or contamination (Kapphahn et al., 2025).

These children weren’t being “picky.” Many were experiencing contamination obsessions that made food feel dangerous, sensory changes that made textures intolerable, or a sudden loss of hunger drive. The practical upshot: hydration, weight trajectory, growth, and micronutrient adequacy are safety issues in this population, not lifestyle preferences (Kapphahn et al., 2025; Thienemann et al., 2017).

The immune - brain story, without pretending it is settled

The leading mechanistic hypothesis for PANS/PANDAS centres on molecular mimicry. Here is how it is thought to work, step by step:

In a healthy immune response, a child catches strep throat. The immune system produces antibodies that recognise proteins on the surface of the streptococcal bacterium. The infection is cleared, and the immune system stands down. In some children, however, the antibodies produced against the streptococcal proteins also happen to recognise proteins on the surface of nerve cells in the basal ganglia - because the molecular shapes are similar enough to cause confusion. These cross-reactive antibodies then attack neuronal tissue, producing inflammation in brain circuits responsible for habits, movement, and emotional regulation (Leonardi et al., 2024; Wilbur et al., 2019).

💡 Analogy: Imagine your home security system is trained to recognise a specific intruder’s face. It works perfectly - until a new neighbour moves in who happens to look remarkably similar. The alarm keeps going off, not because there’s a real threat, but because the system can’t tell the difference. In molecular mimicry, the “intruder” is the strep bacterium, the “neighbour” is the child’s own brain tissue, and the “alarm” is the immune response that won’t switch off.

Research has also identified roles for pro-inflammatory signalling molecules called cytokines - particularly IL-17 and TNF-alpha - which were found at higher levels in PANDAS patients compared to controls in an Italian cohort study. IL-17 is especially interesting because it can weaken the blood-brain barrier (the tightly sealed boundary that normally keeps immune cells out of the brain), potentially allowing inflammatory cells and antibodies to access brain tissue more easily (Leonardi et al., 2024).

🔬 What is the blood-brain barrier?: Your brain is surrounded by a highly selective border - a bit like passport control at an airport. It only lets through substances the brain needs (glucose, oxygen, certain amino acids) and keeps most immune cells and large molecules out. When inflammatory signals like IL-17 weaken this barrier, it’s as though passport control stops checking credentials. Immune cells and antibodies that shouldn’t be in the brain can slip through, and the resulting inflammation may drive neuropsychiatric symptoms.

Brain imaging studies have also detected abnormalities in the basal ganglia of affected children, which supports the idea that this is where the immune-mediated damage is happening (Leonardi et al., 2024). However - and this is a critical “however”- the immune-mechanistic literature still reads like a field searching for firm ground. Reviews describe plausible immunological features but also highlight inconsistency in markers and the need for better validation across larger cohorts (Sigra et al., 2018; Wilbur et al., 2019). That combination - plausible plus inconsistent - is exactly why it is risky when online protocols speak as though a single mechanism applies uniformly to every child.

What has been studied most directly - and where nutrition sits in that stack

If you follow the published evidence rather than internet protocols, the most directly studied and structured approaches for symptom improvement include:

1. Psychiatric and behavioural interventions. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), specifically frameworks that include exposure and response prevention (ERP), is the best-supported psychological intervention for the OCD symptoms that define PANS. In ERP, a child is gradually and supportively exposed to the situations that trigger their compulsions, while learning to resist performing the compulsive behaviour. This retrains the brain’s threat-detection circuits over time. The AAP’s 2025 clinical report recommends CBT as a first-line treatment for many PANS symptoms (Thienemann et al., 2017; AAP, 2025; Sigra et al., 2018).

2. Medical assessment and treatment of triggers. When a clear infection (such as active strep) is identified, treating it is appropriate and well-supported. But infection management papers describe approaches to evaluating and treating specific infections in selected cases - not prescribing antibiotics as a universal or indefinite solution (Cooperstock et al., 2017; Sigra et al., 2018).

3. Nutrition as a clinical necessity (not a cure). Nutrition enters the evidence story differently from the interventions above. Treatment reviews consistently describe widespread use of diets and supplements among families, but a scarcity of rigorous controlled trials for these strategies in PANS/PANDAS specifically (Sigra et al., 2018; Calaprice et al., 2018). That doesn’t demote nutrition to irrelevant. It sets boundaries around what can honestly be promised.

Antibiotics: the part of the story that actually includes randomised data

Because infections can precede onset or flares in some children, antibiotics come up early in many family journeys. The most directly relevant evidence comes from a randomised, placebo-controlled pilot study by Murphy and colleagues (2017), which evaluated azithromycin in 31 children meeting PANS criteria with acute-onset or relapse of moderate-to-severe OCD. The azithromycin group showed greater reduction in OCD severity on the Clinical Global Impression scale compared to placebo (Murphy et al., 2017; Wilbur et al., 2019).

That is meaningful - it moves the conversation beyond anecdote into controlled evidence. But context matters. This was a pilot trial (small sample), and other neuropsychiatric outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. A separate randomised trial of long-term penicillin prophylaxis found no reduction in exacerbation rate or tic and OCD severity (Wilbur et al., 2019; Sigra et al., 2018). Systematic reviews still describe the broader treatment literature as limited and heterogeneous, which means we cannot yet draw firm, universal rules from these studies.

🔬 Why do small pilot trials matter - and why can’t they settle the question?: A pilot trial is a first test of an idea in a controlled setting. It tells you whether the approach is worth studying further and whether it appears safe. But because the sample is small, the results are more easily swayed by chance, individual variation, or the natural waxing and waning of symptoms (PANS/PANDAS often fluctuates). To convert a promising pilot result into a confident clinical recommendation, you typically need larger trials with more participants, ideally across multiple centres.

For nutrition, the antibiotic question is not abstract. Antibiotics can disrupt appetite and gut tolerance - and when a child is already eating from a narrow range, those side effects can tip the balance from fragile stability into crisis. This is one reason nutrition support becomes the glue that allows medical and behavioural plans to be sustained (Cooperstock et al., 2017; Thienemann et al., 2017).

Anti-Inflammatories: an intriguing signal, not a guarantee

NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, such as ibuprofen) are sometimes used during flares. An observational study by Brown and colleagues (2017) reported that NSAID use was associated with shorter flare duration in a PANS cohort. That finding gives the “inflammation might matter for some children” idea a degree of empirical support (Brown et al., 2017).

But observational findings are not the same as randomised trial results. In an observational study, patients weren’t randomly assigned to receive NSAIDs or not - which means that the children who received NSAIDs may have differed from those who didn’t in ways that affect the outcome (severity, access to care, co-treatments, timing of intervention). It’s a meaningful clue, not a clean proof. Critically, it does not justify a one-size-fits-all anti-inflammatory nutrition protocol for PANS (Brown et al., 2017; Sigra et al., 2018).

💡 Analogy: Imagine you notice that people who carry umbrellas tend to stay drier during rainstorms. That’s an observational finding - and it’s probably correct. But you haven’t proven that umbrellas cause dryness, because umbrella-carriers might also be the kind of people who check weather forecasts and stay near shelter. An observational study of NSAIDs in PANS has the same limitation: the association is real, but the causal story needs a randomised trial to confirm.

Intravenous immunoglobulin: high stakes and mixed clarity

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) - a treatment that delivers a concentrated dose of antibodies from donated blood to dampen or redirect an overactive immune response - has been tested in a randomised design in PANDAS by Williams and colleagues (2016). Reviews continue to describe the evidence base as limited and mixed, with uncertainty around which children are most likely to respond (Williams et al., 2016; Sigra et al., 2018; AAP, 2025).

🔬 How does IVIG work?: Think of IVIG as flooding the immune system with “normal” antibodies from healthy donors. This can work in several ways: the donated antibodies may dilute out or compete with the child’s misdirected antibodies, they may calm down overactive immune cells, or they may help reset immune regulation. It’s a bit like resetting a confused GPS by inputting thousands of correct coordinates - the system gradually recalibrates toward the right signals.

Families often hear about dramatic IVIG responses, but the published literature still encourages careful patient selection and a sober view of the evidence. This is especially important because IVIG is invasive, expensive, and carries its own risks including headache, nausea, and rare but serious allergic reactions (Sigra et al., 2018; AAP, 2025).

The nutrition relevance here is practical. When medical teams are considering high-intensity interventions like IVIG, the child’s baseline nutritional status - hydration, weight trajectory, micronutrient adequacy - affects their resilience and recovery capacity. A child who is already nutritionally compromised from weeks of restrictive eating is less physiologically robust going into any treatment (Kapphahn et al., 2025; Sigra et al., 2018).

The gut microbiome: a tempting chapter with more “difference” than “proof”

A microbiome profiling study by Quagliariello and colleagues (2018) reported differences in gut microbial patterns in children with PANS/PANDAS compared with controls. This makes gut–brain discussions feel plausible and helps explain why gastrointestinal symptoms often sit alongside the neuropsychiatric picture (Quagliariello et al., 2018).

But microbiome research is famous for a trap: finding a difference is not the same as finding a cause. The altered gut flora in these children might be contributing to symptoms - or it might simply reflect the consequences of eating from a severely restricted range, taking repeated courses of antibiotics, experiencing chronic stress, or sleeping badly. All of these factors independently reshape the gut microbiome (Quagliariello et al., 2018; Sigra et al., 2018).

💡 Analogy: Imagine you photograph the contents of people’s fridges and find that people with flu have more soup and less fresh produce. You’ve found a genuine difference, but it doesn’t mean that soup caused the flu - it means being ill changed what people chose to eat. Microbiome differences in PANS could work the same way: the disease (and its treatment) may reshape the gut, rather than the gut reshaping the disease. Treatment reviews do not yet provide a robust PANS-specific probiotic trial base that would let anyone confidently prescribe “the strain that treats PANS.” This doesn’t mean gut health is irrelevant; it means that specific probiotic claims for this condition are running ahead of the evidence (Sigra et al., 2018).

What families commonly try - and why that cannot be treated as “what works”

A large caregiver survey by Calaprice and colleagues (2018) described high use of supplements and special diets among families of children with PANS/PANDAS, with many caregivers reporting perceived benefit. This is genuinely valuable: it shows what families reach for, what deserves better research, and what the lived experience of managing this condition looks like (Calaprice et al., 2018).

But it is also the kind of evidence that can mislead when it is treated like a clinical trial. Surveys cannot untangle placebo effects (feeling better because you believe a treatment is working), concurrent treatments (the child may have also started therapy or antibiotics around the same time), natural fluctuation (PANS/PANDAS often waxes and wanes on its own), or regression to the mean (the tendency for extreme symptoms to naturally move back toward average over time). This is precisely why systematic reviews of PANS/PANDAS treatments keep reaching the same conclusion: complementary approaches are widely used, but controlled evidence is scarce (Sigra et al., 2018; Calaprice et al., 2018).

🔬 What is regression to the mean?: Families tend to try new interventions when symptoms are at their worst. But extreme states - in any fluctuating condition - naturally tend to drift back toward average, regardless of what you do. So if you start a supplement at the peak of a flare, and the flare then eases, it’s tempting to credit the supplement. But the improvement might have happened anyway. This is not cynicism - it’s the reason we need randomised controlled trials, which compare a treatment group against a placebo group to see whether the improvement is genuinely caused by the intervention.

Diets and “foods to avoid”: what can be said without overclaiming

Families are often advised to remove gluten, dairy, sugar, histamine-rich foods, salicylates, oxalates, or whole food groups. The PANS/PANDAS treatment literature does not provide strong randomised trial support for these eliminations as disease-targeted treatments (Sigra et al., 2018). That means sweeping dietary eliminations should be treated as unproven - especially in a condition where restricted eating can be part of the syndrome itself.

This is a point worth sitting with. When a child’s brain is already driving them to restrict food, adding more dietary restrictions can be medically counterproductive. Over 56% of children in the Stanford PANS cohort developed abrupt-onset food restriction during flares (Kapphahn et al., 2025). Dietary rigidity can be both a proposed “solution” and part of the symptom picture - and telling the difference requires clinical judgement, not ideology.

None of this means food-triggered symptom relationships never exist in individual children. But the safest scientific approach is to treat eliminations as individual experiments requiring clear, reproducible links and a structured plan for reintroduction - not open-ended restriction that quietly becomes the main chronic problem (Kapphahn et al., 2025; Thienemann et al., 2017).

Ketogenic diets and other intensive dietary patterns are sometimes discussed in online communities, but within the published PANS/PANDAS literature, controlled diet trials are not established as a core evidence base. When diet becomes more restrictive than the child can tolerate, the nutritional risks described in the eating restriction literature stop being theoretical (Sigra et al., 2018; Kapphahn et al., 2025).

Supplements: what is closest to evidence, and what remains speculation

The most defensible supplement role in PANS/PANDAS is usually narrower than families hope. Treatment reviews do not identify a robust set of PANS-specific supplement trials that reliably improve core outcomes (Sigra et al., 2018; Calaprice et al., 2018). That makes it risky when online protocols claim a supplement stack is “proven for PANS.”

Where supplements can make sense is in two areas: (a) targeted support for specific symptom domains where some controlled data exist, and (b) correcting nutritional deficiencies that predictably develop when a child is eating restrictively and spending less time outdoors.

N-acetylcysteine (NAC). A double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial by Li, Bloch and colleagues (2020) evaluated NAC (up to 2,700 mg/day) in children aged 8–17 with OCD. NAC was associated with a significant reduction in OCD severity on the CY-BOCS scale compared to placebo, with effects emerging around week 8 (Li et al., 2020). Since OCD is the central defining symptom of PANS, this places NAC closer to controlled evidence for one symptom domain than most popular supplement claims.

🔬 How might NAC work in OCD?: NAC is a glutamate-modulating agent - it influences the brain’s main excitatory neurotransmitter system. Think of glutamate as the brain’s accelerator pedal. In OCD, there’s evidence that glutamate signalling becomes dysregulated, contributing to the “stuck” quality of obsessive thoughts and compulsive loops. NAC may help restore the balance between acceleration and braking in these circuits. It also has antioxidant properties, supporting the body’s ability to manage oxidative stress.

However, the trial was small (11 children completed it) and was terminated early due to recruitment difficulties. The practical takeaway is not “everyone with PANS should take NAC,” but rather: “if symptom burden is OCD-dominant, this is one of the few supplements with paediatric randomised data relevant to that symptom type, and its use should be clinician-guided” (Li et al., 2020).

Vitamin D. Vitamin D frequently appears in immune and mental-health conversations. A randomised clinical trial (the VIDI study) found that daily vitamin D3 supplementation in the first two years of life was associated with reduced risk of clinically significant internalising problems (anxiety, depression, withdrawal) at ages 6 to 8, compared with the standard dose (Sandboge et al., 2023). Clinically significant internalising problems affected 5.6% of the higher-dose group versus 11.8% of the standard-dose group.

This is not PANS-specific and does not prove that vitamin D prevents or treats PANS flares. But it supports a conservative foundation approach: correcting vitamin D deficiency is reasonable as part of general neurodevelopmental support, particularly in children whose intake is restricted and whose outdoor time is reduced. The operative word is “correcting deficiency,” not “megadosing as treatment” (Sandboge et al., 2023; Kapphahn et al., 2025).

Prevention: a careful answer is the only honest one

Prevention is hard when the condition is syndrome-level (defined by a pattern of symptoms rather than a single cause) and heterogeneous (different children may arrive at the same symptom picture via different routes). Clinical management papers discuss infection treatment and prevention strategies in selected scenarios - for example, addressing recurrent group A streptococcal infections in children with documented relapsing courses (Cooperstock et al., 2017; Wilbur et al., 2019).

But the systematic review literature does not support the claim that a particular diet or supplement has been proven to prevent PANS/PANDAS onset (Sigra et al., 2018; Cooperstock et al., 2017). Until better trials exist, prevention talk has to stay grounded in what is actually supported: timely evaluation when symptoms emerge, appropriate infection management when indicated, and protecting baseline health factors - sleep, nutrition, stress management - that are plausibly supportive but not proven to be uniquely diagnostic or curative.

What a practical nutrition approach can do - without slipping into fantasy

A functional nutrition lens can be rigorous when it focuses on the factors the literature repeatedly flags as clinically meaningful. The priorities, roughly in order:

First: stabilise the basics. When abrupt restrictive eating is present, ensuring adequate calories, fluids, electrolytes, and core micronutrients is not a wellness trend - it is a clinical necessity. A child who is underfuelled cannot engage effectively in the CBT and ERP work that the evidence best supports. Sleep, cognition, mood, and immune function all suffer when nutritional foundations crumble (Kapphahn et al., 2025; Thienemann et al., 2017).

Second: minimise unnecessary restriction. This can feel counterintuitive when the internet is full of elimination protocols, but in a condition where over half of children already restrict food during flares, the most therapeutic dietary intervention is often broadening the range of tolerated foods, not narrowing it further.

Third: support tolerance around medical treatments. Antibiotics, NSAIDs, and other medications can all affect appetite and gut comfort. Practical nutrition support - timing of meals, tolerability of textures, managing nausea - becomes the scaffolding that allows medical plans to be sustained.

Fourth: individualise carefully. If a family suspects a specific food link, the approach should be to test it as a structured, time-limited experiment with a clear reintroduction plan - not an open-ended elimination that quietly compounds the child’s already-restricted intake (Calaprice et al., 2018; Sigra et al., 2018; Thienemann et al., 2017).

Are you a parent reading this and you want structured help?

If your child’s eating has narrowed, weight is drifting, or you want a nutritional plan that supports medical and psychological care rather than competing with it, it can help to work with a practitioner who understands paediatric nutrition in neuro-immune presentations and the realities of restrictive eating. Abrupt restrictive intake patterns are described as clinically significant in PANS presentations and deserve careful, child-safe support (Kapphahn et al., 2025).

If you want support building that nutrition and lifestyle layer in a way that is realistic, staged, and aligned to the evidence base, we have a designated paediatric practitioner, Jessica, who specialises in neurodivergence, ARFID and PANS/PANDAS. This is often the intersection families are trying to navigate when abrupt-onset neuropsychiatric symptoms collide with eating restriction and gut tolerance issues.

Book an initial chat with Jess to find out how she can support your family, or go to www.younutritionclinic.com to learn about our team of practitioners who are there to support you with a number of neurological and neurodegenerative health conditions.

Stay curious. Stay hopeful. Support your brain. 🧠

🧩 Connect with us

👉 @nutritionandthebrain

Disclaimer: This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult with a qualified, registered medical doctor (MD) for diagnosis and treatment decisions.

References

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). (2025). Pediatric Acute-Onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome (PANS): Clinical Report. Pediatrics, 155(3), e2024070334. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2024-070334

Brown, K.D., Farmer, C., Farhadian, B., Hernandez, J., Thienemann, M., & Frankovich, J. (2017). Pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome response to oral corticosteroid bursts: an observational study of patients in an academic community-based PANS clinic. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 27(7), 629–639. https://doi.org/10.1089/cap.2016.0139

Calaprice, D., Tona, J., & Murphy, T.K. (2018). Treatment of pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric disorder in a large survey population. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 28(2), 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1089/cap.2017.0101

Cooperstock, M.S., Swedo, S.E., Pasternack, M.S., Murphy, T.K., & PANS/PANDAS Consortium. (2017). Clinical management of pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome: Part III—Treatment and prevention of infections. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 27(7), 594–606. https://doi.org/10.1089/cap.2016.0151

Kapphahn, C., Peet, B., Gao, J., Chan, A., Farhadian, B., Ma, M., Silverman, M., Tran, P., Schlenk, N., Thienemann, M., & Frankovich, J. (2025). Sudden onset disordered eating behaviors and appetite issues in a local clinical cohort of children with Pediatric Acute-Onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome (PANS). International Journal of Eating Disorders, 58(7), 1219–1232. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.24388

Leonardi, L., Perna, C., Bernabei, I., Fiore, M., Ma, M., Frankovich, J., Tarani, L., & Spalice, A. (2024). Pediatric Acute-Onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome (PANS) and Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal Infections (PANDAS): Immunological features underpinning controversial entities. Children, 11(9), 1043. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11091043

Li, F., Welling, M.C., Johnson, J.A., Coughlin, C., Mulqueen, J., Jakubovski, E., Coury, S., Landeros-Weisenberger, A., & Bloch, M.H. (2020). N-acetylcysteine for pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder: A small pilot study. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 30(1), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1089/cap.2019.0041

Murphy, T.K., Brennan, E.M., Johnco, C., Parker-Athill, E.C., Miladinovic, B., Storch, E.A., & Lewin, A.B. (2017). A double-blind randomized placebo-controlled pilot study of azithromycin in youth with acute-onset obsessive-compulsive disorder. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 27(7), 640–651. https://doi.org/10.1089/cap.2016.0190

Quagliariello, A., Del Chierico, F., Russo, A., Reddel, S., Conte, G., Lopetuso, L.R., Ianiro, G., Dallapiccola, B., Cardona, F., Gasbarrini, A., & Putignani, L. (2018). Gut microbiota profiling and gut–brain crosstalk in children affected by pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome and pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections. Frontiers in Microbiology, 9, 675. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.00675

Sandboge, S., Räikkönen, K., Lahti-Pulkkinen, M., Hauta-alus, H., Holmlund-Suila, E., Girchenko, P., Kajantie, E., Mäkitie, O., Andersson, S., & Heinonen, K. (2023). Effect of vitamin D3 supplementation in the first 2 years of life on psychiatric symptoms at ages 6 to 8 years: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open, 6(5), e2314319. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.14319

Sigra, S., Hesselmark, E., & Bejerot, S. (2018). Treatment of PANDAS and PANS: A systematic review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 86, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.01.001

Thienemann, M., Murphy, T., Leckman, J., Shaw, R., Williams, K., Kapphahn, C., Frankovich, J., Geller, D., Bernstein, G., Chang, K., Elia, J., & Swedo, S. (2017). Clinical management of pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome: Part I—Psychiatric and behavioral interventions. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 27(7), 566–573. https://doi.org/10.1089/cap.2016.0145

Wilbur, C., Bitnun, A., Kronenberg, S., Laxer, R.M., Levy, D.M., Logan, W.J., Shouldice, M., & Yeh, E.A. (2019). PANDAS/PANS in childhood: Controversies and evidence. Paediatrics & Child Health, 24(2), 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/pxy145

Williams, K.A., Swedo, S.E., Farmer, C.A., Grantz, H., Grant, P.J., D’Souza, P., Hommer, R.,

Katsovich, L., King, R.A., & Leckman, J.F. (2016). Randomized, controlled trial of intravenous immunoglobulin for pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 55(10), 860–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2016.06.017