Re-thinking the treatment of depression: have we been misinformed about antidepressants? A webinar discussion with Irving Kirsch, Ph.D. and Michael D. Yapko, Ph.D

This article provides an edited transcript of a moderated discussion between depression experts Irving Kirsch and Michael Yapko regarding the role of antidepressants in the treatment of major depression. It includes references to the role of expectancy and the merits of hypnosis in treatment. This presentation was sponsored by MindsetHealth, an Australian-based digital therapeutics company (mindsethealth.com) and took place online on March 28, 2023. As a webinar offered at no cost, it was open to anyone with an interest in the subject. Dr. Kirsch described his landmark research on the placebo effect and its curious relationship to the presumed merits of antidepressant medications. Dr. Yapko discussed the limitations of drug treatment based on the substantial evidence indicating that depression is much more a social problem than a medical one. The moderator for this discussion is Claire Davidson, who serves as the Research Lead at MindsetHealth. Drs. Kirsch and Yapko both serve on the MindsetHealth Scientific Advisory Board.

Reciprocal relationships between positive expectancies and positive emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-lagged panel study

INTRODUCTION

Previous research highlighted the importance of investigating distinct protective factors that predict the experience of positive emotions during stressful situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In this longitudinal study, we specifically focused on positive expectancies towards the future (optimism, response expectancy, and response hope) in relation to the experience of positive emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our primary objectives were to identify the best predictors for experiencing short-term and long-term positive emotions and investigate their interrelationships.

METHODS

Data from 271 participants (average age = 29.2 years, 84.7% female) were analyzed using four cross-lagged models.

RESULTS

Results showed that response expectancy was the best predictor for experiencing positive emotions in the short term, while optimism was the best predictor for experiencing positive emotions in the long term. Additionally, through further exploratory analysis, multiple bidirectional relationships were identified between positive expectancies and positive emotions.

DISCUSSION

Our results highlight the significant role played by positive expectancies in predicting the experience of positive emotions. Specifically, dispositional optimism emerged as a stronger predictor of longer-term positive emotions, whereas response expectancy proved to be a better predictor of shorter-term positive emotions. Thus, interventions targeting positive expectancies have the potential to enhance emotional functioning in individuals during challenging situations like the COVID-19 pandemic.

The relationship between transliminality, hypnotic and imaginative suggestibility, and other personality traits

To our knowledge, no study has directly examined the link between hypnotic response and the personality trait of transliminality (which is underpinned, for example, by magical ideation, mystical experience, fantasy proneness, absorption, hyperaesthesia). In order to further understand the correlates of suggestibility, the aim of the current project was to investigate whether transliminality is associated with hypnotic and imaginative suggestibility (considering: objective response, subjective response and involuntariness). Another aim was to assess the contribution of transliminality as a predictor of suggestibility when a range of previously studied personality trait measures were considered. Participants completed: the Revised Transliminality Scale, Tellegen Absorption Scale, Creative Experiences Questionnaire, and the Dissociative Experiences Scale II. To avoid context effects, where knowledge or measurement of one trait or ability might influence measurement of another, a separate standalone study was conducted where hypnotic and imaginative (without hypnosis) suggestibility screenings were carried out in-person in small groups using the modified Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale. The merging of these two datasets enabled the analyses. Transliminality was weakly correlated with the imaginative suggestibility subjective response measure (r = 0.19). Likewise, weak correlations were found between transliminality and the hypnotic suggestibility response measures (objective, r = 0.21, subjective, r = 0.23, involuntariness, r = 0.24). The multiple regressions (forward selection) reflected the pattern of correlations, with no model for any of the variables, retaining more than a single significant predictor. In summary, this study combination, avoiding context effects, shows transliminality to be a weak predictor of response to suggestion.

Placebos in pediatrics: A cross-sectional survey investigating physicians' perspectives

OBJECTIVE

Placebo responses are significantly higher in children than in adults, suggesting a potential underused treatment option in pediatric care. To facilitate the clinical translation of these beneficial effects, we explored physicians' current practice, opinions, knowledge, and likelihood of recommending placebos in the future.

METHODS

A cross-sectional web-based survey administered by REDCap was conducted at Boston Children's Hospital between October 2021 and March 2022. Physicians (n = 1157) were invited to participate through an email containing a link to a 23-item survey designed to assess physicians' attitudes and perceptions towards the clinical use of placebo in pediatrics.

RESULTS

From 207 (18%) returned surveys, 109 (9%) were fully completed. Most respondents (79%) believed that enhancing the therapeutic components that contribute to the placebo response may be a way of improving pediatric care. However, whereas most (62%) found placebo treatments permissible, only one-third reported recommending them. In pediatrics, placebos are typically introduced as a medicine that "might help" (43%). The most common treatments recommended to enhance placebo effects are physical therapy, vitamins, and over-the-counter analgesics. Physicians most frequently recommend placebos for occasional pain, headaches, and anxiety disorders. Finally, the great majority of physicians (87%) stated they would be more likely to recommend placebo treatments if there were safety and ethical guidelines for open-label placebos.

CONCLUSIONS

Placebo treatments seem permissible to physicians in pediatric care, but the development of safety and ethical guidelines may be necessary before physicians systematically incorporate the benefits of the placebo effect in pediatrics.

A qualitative study of imaginary pills and open-label placebos in test anxiety

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of open-label placebos (OLPs) has been increasingly demonstrated and their use holds promise for applications compatible with basic ethical principles. Taking this concept one step further an imaginary pill (IP) intervention without the use of a physical pill was developed and tested in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). To explore participants' experiences and views, we conducted the first qualitative study in the field of IPs.

METHODS

A reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) of semi-structured interviews with test anxious students (N = 20) was nested in an RCT investigating an IP and OLP intervention. In addition, open-ended questions from the RCT were evaluated (N = 114) to corroborate the RTA and pill characteristics were included to more accurately capture the IP experience.

RESULTS

Four key themes were identified: (1) attitude towards the intervention, (2) applicability of the intervention, (3) experience of effects, and (4) characteristics of the imagination. The IP intervention was well-accepted, easily applicable, and various effects, pill characteristics and appearances were described. While many participants did not desire a physical pill, either due to the absence of the imagination component or aversion to pills, the approach was considered to be cognitively and time demanding, which in turn, however, encouraged the establishment of a therapeutic ritual that protected against the increase in test anxiety during the preparation phase. OLP findings were comparable, and especially the importance of a treatment rationale was stressed in both groups, counteracting an initial ambivalent attitude. The RTA findings were supported by the open-ended questions of the RCT.

CONCLUSION

IPs appear to be a well-accepted and easily applicable intervention producing a variety of beneficial effects. Thus, the IP approach might serve as an imaginary based alternative to OLPs warranting further investigations on its application to harness placebo effects without a physical pill.

What are the treatment remission, response and extent of improvement rates after up to four trials of antidepressant therapies in real-world depressed patients? A reanalysis of the STAR*D study's patient-level data with fidelity to the original research protocol

OBJECTIVE

Reanalyse the patient-level data set of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study with fidelity to the original research protocol and related publications.

DESIGN

The study was open label and semirandomised examining the effectiveness of up to four optimised and increasingly aggressive, antidepressant therapies in depressed adults. Patients who failed to gain adequate relief from their level 1 trial on the SSRI citalopram could receive up to three additional treatment trials in levels 2-4.

SETTING

41 North American psychiatry and primary care treatment centres.

PARTICIPANTS

4041 adults screened positive for major depressive disorder. In contrast to most clinical trials, STAR*D enrolled patients seeking care (vs recruited) and included patients with a wide range of common comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions to enhance the generalisability of findings to real-world clinical practice.

INTERVENTIONS

STAR*D evaluated the relative effectiveness of 13 antidepressants therapies in treatment levels 2-4 for depressed patients who failed to gain adequate benefit from their level 1 medication trial.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

According to the STAR*D protocol, the primary outcome was remission, defined as a score <8 on the blinded Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD). Response was a secondary outcome defined as ≥50% reduction in HRSD scores. STAR*D's protocol specifically excluded all non-blinded clinic-administered assessments from use as research outcome measures.

RESULTS

STAR*D investigators did not use the protocol-stipulated HRSD to report cumulative remission and response rates in their summary article and instead used a non-blinded clinic-administered assessment. This inflated their report of outcomes, as did their inclusion of 99 patients who scored as remitted on the HRSD at study outset as well as 125 who scored as remitted when initiating their next-level treatment. These patients should have been excluded from data analysis. In contrast to the STAR*D-reported 67% cumulative remission rate after up to four antidepressant treatment trials, the rate was 35.0% when using the protocol-stipulated HRSD and inclusion in data analysis criteria.

CONCLUSION

STAR*D's cumulative remission rate was approximately half of that reported.

Brain-to-brain mechanisms underlying pain empathy and social modulation of pain in the patient-clinician interaction

Social interactions such as the patient-clinician encounter can influence pain, but the underlying dynamic interbrain processes are unclear. Here, we investigated the dynamic brain processes supporting social modulation of pain by assessing simultaneous brain activity (fMRI hyperscanning) from chronic pain patients and clinicians during video-based live interaction. Patients received painful and nonpainful pressure stimuli either with a supportive clinician present (Dyadic) or in isolation (Solo). In half of the dyads, clinicians performed a clinical consultation and intake with the patient prior to hyperscanning (Clinical Interaction), which increased self-reported therapeutic alliance. For the other half, patient-clinician hyperscanning was completed without prior clinical interaction (No Interaction). Patients reported lower pain intensity in the Dyadic, relative to the Solo, condition. In Clinical Interaction dyads relative to No Interaction, patients evaluated their clinicians as better able to understand their pain, and clinicians were more accurate when estimating patients' pain levels. In Clinical Interaction dyads, compared to No Interaction, patients showed stronger activation of the dorsolateral and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC and vlPFC) and primary (S1) and secondary (S2) somatosensory areas (Dyadic-Solo contrast), and clinicians showed increased dynamic dlPFC concordance with patients' S2 activity during pain. Furthermore, the strength of S2-dlPFC concordance was positively correlated with self-reported therapeutic alliance. These findings support that empathy and supportive care can reduce pain intensity and shed light on the brain processes underpinning social modulation of pain in patient-clinician interactions. Our findings further suggest that clinicians' dlPFC concordance with patients' somatosensory processing during pain can be boosted by increasing therapeutic alliance.

The risks of adverse events with venlafaxine and mirtazapine versus 'active placebo', placebo, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for two separate systematic reviews with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder causes a great burden on patients and societies. Venlafaxine and mirtazapine are commonly prescribed as second-line treatment for patients with major depressive disorder worldwide. Previous systematic reviews have concluded that venlafaxine and mirtazapine reduce depressive symptoms, but the effects seem small and may not be important to the average patient. Moreover, previous reviews have not systematically assessed the occurrence of adverse events. Therefore, we aim to investigate the risks of adverse events with venlafaxine or mirtazapine versus 'active placebo', placebo, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder in two separate systematic reviews.

METHODS

This is a protocol for two systematic reviews with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis. The assessments of the effects of venlafaxine or mirtazapine will be reported in two separate reviews. The protocol is reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols, risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 2, clinical significance will be assessed using our eight-step procedure, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We will search for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases and trial registers. Two review authors will independently screen the results from the literature searches, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We will include published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing venlafaxine or mirtazapine with 'active placebo', placebo, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The primary outcomes will be suicides or suicide attempts, serious adverse events, and non-serious adverse events. Exploratory outcomes will include depressive symptoms, quality of life, and individual adverse events. If feasible, we will assess the intervention effects using random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses.

DISCUSSION

Venlafaxine and mirtazapine are frequently used as second-line treatment of major depressive disorder worldwide. There is a need for a thorough systematic review to provide the necessary background for weighing the benefits against the harms. This review will ultimately inform best practice in the treatment of major depressive disorder.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022315395.

Clinical hypnosis as a nondeceptive placebo: empirically derived techniques

Many psychological problems are maintained, in part, by dysfunctional response expectancies, and changing those expectations is an essential part of treatment. Hypnotic inductions alter response expectancies and have been shown empirically to substantially enhance the effects of psychotherapy. Therefore, hypnosis can be used therapeutically as a nondeceptive placebo. Expectancy plays a major role in hypnotic inductions and their effects. Clinical procedures suggested by these data are explored.

Are They Side Effects? Extraintestinal Symptoms Reported During Clinical Trials of Irritable Bowel Syndrome May Be More Severe at Baseline

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Many of the reported adverse events in clinical trials of irritable bowel syndrome are extraintestinal symptoms, which typically are assessed by open-ended questions during the trial and not at baseline. This may lead to misattribution of some pre-existing symptoms as side effects to the treatment.

METHODS

The current study analyzed data from a 6-week clinical trial of irritable bowel syndrome. Participants were randomized to receive double-blind peppermint oil, double-blind placebo, or treatment as usual. Extraintestinal symptoms were assessed at baseline and at the end of the study.

RESULTS

This analysis included 173 participants (30 received double-blind peppermint oil, 72 received treatment as usual, and 71 received double-blind placebo). At baseline, each group reported approximately 5 extraintestinal symptoms per participant. The number of symptoms per participant decreased to an average of 3 by the end-of-study visit, and this change was statistically significant in all groups (P < .001 for each group). When evaluating individual extraintestinal symptoms, the majority of participants did not report new/worse symptoms. In fact, between the baseline assessment and the final assessment, the average symptom severity decreased significantly in all 3 groups (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that participants with irritable bowel syndrome often experience extraintestinal symptoms at baseline and that these symptoms generally improve in severity over the course of a clinical trial, regardless of the treatment arm. Systematic assessment of extraintestinal symptoms at the beginning of a clinical trial is necessary to determine more definitively whether these symptoms may be considered an adverse event attributable to a study medication.

Remotely Provided Open-Label Placebo Reduces Frequency of and Impairment by Allergic Symptoms

OBJECTIVE

Placebos being prescribed with full honesty and disclosure (i.e., open-label placebo [OLP]) have been shown to reduce symptom burden in a variety of conditions. With regard to allergic rhinitis, previous research provided inconclusive evidence for the effects of OLP, possibly related to a separate focus on either symptom severity or symptom frequency. Overcoming this limitation of previous research, the present study aimed to examine the effects of OLP on both the severity and frequency of allergic symptoms.

METHODS

In a randomized-controlled trial, patients with allergic rhinitis ( N = 74) were randomized to OLP or treatment as usual (TAU). Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, OLP was administered remotely in a virtual clinical encounter. Participants took placebo tablets for 14 days. The primary outcomes were the severity and frequency of allergic symptoms. The secondary end point was allergy-related impairment.

RESULTS

OLP did not significantly improve symptom severity over TAU ( F (1,71) = 3.280, p = .074, η2 = 0.044) but did reduce symptom frequency ( F (1,71) = 7.272, p = .009, η2 = 0.093) and allergy-related impairment more than TAU ( F (1,71) = 6.445, p = .013, η2 = 0.083), reflecting medium to large effects. The use of other antiallergic medication did not influence the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Although OLP was able to lower the frequency of allergic symptoms and allergy-related impairment substantially, its effects on symptom severity were weaker. The remote provision of OLP suggests that physical contact between patients and providers might not be necessary for OLP to work.

Response to acute monotherapy for major depressive disorder in randomized, placebo controlled trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration: individual participant data analysis

OBJECTIVES

To characterize individual participant level response distributions to acute monotherapy for major depressive disorder in randomized, placebo controlled trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration from 1979 to 2016.

DESIGN

Individual participant data analysis.

POPULATION

232 randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trials of drug monotherapy for major depressive disorder submitted by drug developers to the FDA between 1979 and 2016, comprising 73 388 adult and child participants meeting the inclusion criteria for efficacy studies on antidepressants.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Responses were converted to Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD17) equivalent scores where other measures were used to assess efficacy. Multivariable analyses examined the effects of age, sex, baseline severity, and year of the study on improvements in depressive symptoms in the antidepressant and placebo groups. Response distributions were analyzed with finite mixture models.

RESULTS

The random effects mean difference between drug and placebo favored drug (1.75 points, 95% confidence interval 1.63 to 1.86). Differences between drug and placebo increased significantly (P<0.001) with greater baseline severity. After controlling for participant characteristics at baseline, no trends in treatment effect or placebo response over time were found. The best fitting model of response distributions was three normal distributions, with mean improvements from baseline to end of treatment of 16.0, 8.9, and 1.7 points. These distributions were designated Large, Non-specific, and Minimal responses, respectively. Participants who were treated with a drug were more likely to have a Large response (24.5% v 9.6%) and less likely to have a Minimal response (12.2.% v 21.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The trimodal response distributions suggests that about 15% of participants have a substantial antidepressant effect beyond a placebo effect in clinical trials, highlighting the need for predictors of meaningful responses specific to drug treatment.

The Proposed Task Force Hypnosis Efficacy Guidelines: The Role of Moderation and Mediation in Efficacy Trials

Hypnosis interventions have too often failed to disseminate, in part because of the relatively few high-quality, randomized clinical trials. The Task Force proposes efficacy guidelines, which are intended to improve the quality of clinical hypnosis research and thereby increase dissemination of beneficial hypnosis interventions. However, the Task Force, in muddying the focus on efficacy with opinions about moderation and mediation, proposes guidelines that are likely to: (1) weaken efficacy findings; (2) increase participant mistrust; (3) make efficacy trials more cumbersome; and, (4) treat hypnosis as though it were something other than a time-honored form of talk therapy. While applauding the Task Force's intentions, the current recommendations could be changed to better accomplish their goal of increasing hypnosis dissemination and implementation.

Music-Induced Analgesia in Healthy Participants Is Associated With Expected Pain Levels but Not Opioid or Dopamine-Dependent Mechanisms

Music interventions accommodate the profound need for non-pharmacological pain treatment. The analgesic effect of listening to music has been widely demonstrated across studies. Yet, the specific mechanisms of action have still to be elucidated. Although the endogenous opioid and dopamine systems have been suggested to play an important role, a direct link has not been established. In addition, the involvement of placebo mechanisms is likely while largely unexplored. We examined the analgesic effect of music in healthy participants (n = 48) using a 3 × 3 within-subjects design with pharmacological manipulations and a matched, auditory control for music. Participants were exposed to thermal pain stimuli while listening to three auditory excerpts: music (active condition), nature sound (matched, auditory contextual condition), and noise (neutral control condition). The participants rated their expected and perceived pain levels in relation to each of the auditory excerpts. To investigate the involvement of the endogenous opioid and dopamine systems, the test session was performed three times on separate days featuring a double-blind randomized oral administration of naltrexone (opioid antagonist), haloperidol (dopamine antagonist), and an inactive agent (control). Our results support an analgesic effect of music. Contrary to current hypotheses, neither of the antagonists attenuated the effect of music. Yet, the participants' expectations for pain relief predicted their perceived pain levels during the auditory excerpts—even when controlling for a gradual learning effect. In conclusion, we demonstrate that the analgesic effect of music is at least partially mediated by expectations of an analgesic effect—a core mechanism in placebo effects—but not by opioid and dopamine-dependent mechanisms.

Expectations: How and when do they contribute to placebo analgesia?

In placebo research, expectations are highlighted as one of the most influential subjective factors. While some studies have shown a relationship between expectations and pain relief, others have not. However, little is known about how methods of assessment of expectations may affect these conclusions. One of the fundamental considerations is that participants in placebo trials rate their expectations when prompted to rate them on scales in advance, but are less likely to report their prior expectations, when asked to report their experience retroactively in an unprompted manner, often expressing, for example, prior hope or wishes of recovery. This article presents previously unpublished data to elucidate and explore the concepts highlighted by individuals in a placebo analgesia trial when assessed in a prompted and unprompted manner. The data corroborates the role of expectations involved in placebo effects, particularly in placebo analgesia. Thus, the question may be a matter of how and when expectations contribute to placebo effects, rather than if.

What Should Clinicians Tell Patients about Placebo and Nocebo Effects? Practical Considerations Based on Expert Consensus

INTRODUCTION

Clinical and laboratory studies demonstrate that placebo and nocebo effects influence various symptoms and conditions after the administration of both inert and active treatments.

OBJECTIVE

There is an increasing need for up-to-date recommendations on how to inform patients about placebo and nocebo effects in clinical practice and train clinicians how to disclose this information.

METHODS

Based on previous clinical recommendations concerning placebo and nocebo effects, a 3-step, invitation-only Delphi study was conducted among an interdisciplinary group of internationally recognized experts. The study consisted of open- and closed-ended survey questions followed by a final expert meeting. The surveys were subdivided into 3 parts: (1) informing patients about placebo effects, (2) informing patients about nocebo effects, and (3) training clinicians how to communicate this information to the patients.

RESULTS

There was consensus that communicating general information about placebo and nocebo effects to patients (e.g., explaining their role in treatment) could be beneficial, but that such information needs to be adjusted to match the specific clinical context (e.g., condition and treatment). Experts also agreed that training clinicians to communicate about placebo and nocebo effects should be a regular and integrated part of medical education that makes use of multiple formats, including face-to-face and online modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

The current 3-step Delphi study provides consensus-based recommendations and practical considerations for disclosures about placebo and nocebo effects in clinical practice. Future research is needed on how to optimally tailor information to specific clinical conditions and patients' needs, and on developing standardized disclosure training modules for clinicians.

Open-label placebo vs double-blind placebo for irritable bowel syndrome: a randomized clinical trial

ABSTRACT

It is commonly believed that blinding to treatment assignment is necessary for placebos to have an effect. However, placebos administered without concealment (ie, open-label placebos [OLPs]) have recently been shown to be effective in some conditions. This study had 2 objectives: first, to determine whether OLP treatment is superior to no-pill control (NPC) in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and, second, to compare the efficacy of OLP against double-blind placebo (DBP). In a 6-week, 3-arm, randomized clinical trial, participants were randomized in equal proportions to 3 arms: OLP, DBP, or NPC. Two hundred sixty-two adults (72.9% women), with a mean age of 42.0 (SD = 18.1) years, participated in the primary study. The mean improvement on the IBS Severity Scoring System from baseline to the 6-week end point was significantly greater in OLP compared with that in NPC (90.6 vs 52.3, P = 0.038). Open-label placebo and DBP did not differ significantly on IBS Severity Scoring System improvement (100.3 vs 90.6, P = 0.485). Standardized effect sizes were moderate for OLP vs NPC (d = 0.43) and small for OLP vs DBP (d = 0.10). Participants treated with OLP reported clinically meaningful improvements in IBS symptoms that were significantly greater than those on NPC. Open-label placebo and DBP had similar effects that did not differ significantly, suggesting that blinding may not be necessary for placebos to be effective and that OLP could play a role in the management of patients with refractory IBS.

Tricyclic antidepressants versus 'active placebo', placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder is a common psychiatric disorder causing great burden on patients and societies. Tricyclic antidepressants are frequently used worldwide to treat patients with major depressive disorder. It has repeatedly been shown that tricyclic antidepressants reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the effect is small and of questionable clinical importance. Moreover, the beneficial and harmful effects of all types of tricyclic antidepressants have not previously been systematically assessed. Therefore, we aim to investigate the beneficial and harmful effects of tricyclic antidepressants versus 'active placebo', placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder.

METHODS

This is a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis that will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols, bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2, our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control random errors and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases and trial registers, such as CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to 12 May 2021. Clinical study reports will be applied for from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results from the literature searches, extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing tricyclic antidepressants with 'active placebo', placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following interventions will be assessed: amineptine, amitriptyline, amoxapine, butriptyline, cianopramine, clomipramine, desipramine, demexiptiline, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, imipramine, iprindole, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, protriptyline, tianeptine, trimipramine and quinupramine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide-attempts and non-serious adverse events. If feasible, we will assess the intervention effects using random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses.

DISCUSSION

Tricyclic antidepressants are recommended by clinical guidelines and frequently used worldwide in the treatment of major depressive disorder. There is a need for a thorough systematic review to provide the necessary background for weighing the benefits against the harms. This review will ultimately inform best practice in the treatment of major depressive disorder.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021226161 .

Underpredicting pain: an experimental investigation into the benefits and risks

ABSTRACT

Expectancies can shape pain and other experiences. Generally, experiences change in the direction of what is expected (ie, assimilation effects), as seen with placebo effects. However, in case of large expectation-experience discrepancies, experiences might change away from what is expected (ie, contrast effects). Previous research has demonstrated contrast effects on various outcomes, but not pain. We investigated the effects of strong underpredictions of pain on experienced pain intensity. In addition, we assessed related outcomes including (certainty of) expectations, fear of pain, pain unpleasantness, autonomic responses, and trust. Healthy participants (study 1: n = 81 and study 2: n = 123) received verbal suggestions that subsequent heat stimuli would be moderately or highly painful (correct prediction), mildly painful (medium underprediction; study 2 only), or nonpainful (strong underprediction). Both studies showed that participants experienced less intense pain upon strong underprediction than upon correct prediction (ie, assimilation). Expected pain, fear of pain, and pain unpleasantness were generally also lowered. However, strong underprediction simultaneously lowered certainty of expectations and trust in the experimenter. Study 2 indicated that the effects of strong underprediction vs medium underprediction generally did not differ. Moreover, study 2 provided some indications for reduced heart rate and skin conductance levels but increased skin conductance responses upon strong underprediction. In conclusion, even strong underpredictions of pain can reduce pain (ie, cause assimilation), although not significantly more than medium underpredictions. However, strong underpredictions can cause uncertainty and undermine trust. These findings suggest that healthcare providers may wish to be cautious with providing overly positive information about painful medical procedures.

Correction: Providing open-label placebos remotely-A randomized controlled trial in allergic rhinitis

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248367.].

Blinding in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions: a retrospective study of published trial reports

OBJECTIVES

To study the extent of blinding in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions and the interpretative considerations if randomised clinical trials are not blinded.

DESIGN

Retrospective study of trial reports published in six high impact factor journals within the field of psychiatry in 2017 and 2018.

SETTING

Trial reports published in World Psychiatry, JAMA Psychiatry, Lancet Psychiatry, American Journal of Psychiatry, British Journal of Psychiatry, or Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Blinding status of participants, treatment providers, outcome assessors, data managers, the data safety and monitoring committee, statisticians and conclusion makers, if trialists rejected the null hypothesis on the primary outcome measure, and if trialists discussed the potential bias risk from lack of blinding in the published trial report.

RESULTS

63 randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions were identified. None (0%; 95% CI 0% to 5.75%) of the trials reported blinding of all possible key persons. 37 (58.7%; 95% CI 46.42% to 70.04%) trials reported blinding of outcome assessors. Two (3.2%; 95% CI 0.87% to 10.86%) trials reported blinding of participants. Two (3.2%; 95% CI 0.87% to 10.86%) trials reported blinding of data managers. Three (4.8%; 95% CI 1.63% to 13.09%) trials reported blinding of statisticians. None of the trials reported blinding of treatment providers, the data safety and monitoring committee, and conclusion makers. 45 (71.4%; 95% CI 59.30% to 81.10%) trials rejected the null hypothesis on the primary outcome(s). 13 (20.7%; 95% CI 12.48% to 32.17%) trials discussed the potential bias risk from lack of blinding in the published trial report.

CONCLUSIONS

Blinding of key persons involved in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions is rarely sufficiently documented. The possible interpretative limitations are only rarely considered. There is a need of randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions with documented blinding attempts of all possible key persons.

Beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, 'active placebo', or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review of published and unpublished data with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide. Antidepressants are frequently used to treat major depressive disorder. It has been shown repeatedly that antidepressants seem to reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the clinical importance of the effect sizes seems questionable. Both beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants have not previously been sufficiently assessed. The main objective of this review will be to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, 'active placebo', or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder.

METHODS/DESIGN

A systematic review with meta-analysis will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2 (ROB2), our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control for random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases from their inception to the present. Clinical study reports will be obtained from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results of the literature searches, extract data, and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing one or more antidepressants with placebo, 'active placebo', or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following active agents will be included: agomelatine, amineptine, amitriptyline, bupropion, butriptyline, cianopramine, citalopram, clomipramine, dapoxetine, demexiptiline, desipramine, desvenlafaxine, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, iprindole, levomilnacipran, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, paroxetine, protriptyline, quinupramine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, tianeptine, trimipramine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide attempt, suicidal ideation, and non-serious adverse events.

DISCUSSION

As antidepressants are commonly used to treat major depressive disorder in adults, a systematic review evaluating their beneficial and harmful effects is urgently needed. This review will inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent and burdensome disorder.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020220279.

Open-label placebo for chronic low back pain: a 5-year follow-up

ABSTRACT

Long-term follow-up of patients treated with open-label placebo (OLP) are nonexistent. In this article, we report a 5-year follow-up of a 3-week OLP randomized controlled trial (RCT) in patients with chronic low back pain. We recontacted the participants of original RCT and reassessed their pain, disability, and use of pain medication. We obtained follow-up data from 55 participants (82% of those who took OLP during the parent RCT), with a mean elapsed time between the end of the 3 weeks placebo trial and the follow-up interview of 55 months (SD = 7.85). We found significant reductions in both pain and disability between the baseline assessment immediately before the 3 weeks trial with placebo pills and the original trial endpoint (P < 0.00001 for the 2 primary outcomes of pain and disability). At the 5-year follow-up, we found no significant differences in either outcome between original trial endpoint and follow-up. Improvements persisted after 5 years and were accompanied by substantial reductions compared with baseline in the use of pain medication (from 87% to 38%), comprising analgesics (from 80% to 31%), antidepressants (from 24% to 11%), and benzodiazepines (from 15% to 5%). By contrast, the use of alternative approaches to pain management increased (from 18% to 29%). Although the reduction in pain and medication is comparable with the improvements that occurred in the original study, a major limitation of this long-term follow-up is the absence of controls for spontaneous improvement and new cointerventions. Nonetheless, our data suggest that reductions in pain and disability after OLP may be long lasting.

Providing open-label placebos remotely-A randomized controlled trial in allergic rhinitis

Background

Placebos can reduce physical symptoms even when provided with full honesty and disclosure. Yet, the precise mechanisms underlying the effects of “open-label placebos” (OLPs) have remained subject of debate. Furthermore, it is unclear whether OLPs are similarly effective when provided remotely, as is sometimes required e.g. in the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

In a randomized-controlled trial, we examined the effects of OLP plus treatment as usual (TAU) compared to TAU alone on symptom reduction in people with allergic rhinitis (N = 54) over the course of two weeks. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, OLP was provided remotely (i.e. sent via postal service). To investigate the potential influence of the clinical encounter on the effects of OLP, we manipulated the perception of the virtual clinical encounter, both with respect to verbal and nonverbal factors (augmented vs. limited encounter).

Results

The results of the manipulation check confirmed that the augmented clinical encounter was evaluated more positively than the limited encounter, in terms of perceived warmth of the provider. Participants from all treatment groups showed significant symptom reduction from baseline to two weeks later, but OLP had no incremental effect over TAU. Participants benefitted more from OLP when they did not take any other medication against allergic symptoms than when taking medication on demand. When controlling for baseline symptoms, a significant treatment by encounter interaction was found, pointing to greater symptom improvement in the OLP group when the encounter was augmented, whereas the control group improved more when the encounter was limited.

Discussion

The study demonstrates that providing OLP and enhancing the encounter remotely is possible, but their effectiveness might be lower in comparison to previous studies relying on physical patient-provider interaction. The study raises questions for future research about the potential and challenges of remote placebo studies and virtual clinical encounters. The study has been registered as a clinical trial at ISRCTN (record number: 39018).