Are open-Label Placebos Ethical? Informed Consent and Ethical Equivocations

The Ethics of Placebo

This article reviews the ethical implications related to the use of placebos in clinical practice and clinical trials. We discuss evidence for placebo effects, the role of placebo in research and clinical practice, and related ethical issues. It also provides an overview of some of the new findings related to research involving placebos and the possible associated ethical challenges.

Open-label placebos reduce weight in obesity: a randomized controlled trial

Obesity is a major public health problem worldwide. Different approaches are known to face this problem, for example, dieting, surgery, or drug interventions. It has also been shown that placebos may help to reduce weight and hunger feelings, but the use of placebos is linked to problems with respect to the patient-healthcare-provider relationship. However, recent studies demonstrated that even placebos without deception (open-label placebos) affect symptoms such as pain, anxiety, or emotional distress. Here we aimed to examine whether an open-label placebo may help to lose weight in obesity. Our study included fifty-seven overweight and obese patients who aimed to lose weight using a combination of diet and sports. Patients were randomly divided into two groups. Participants in the open-label placebo group received two placebos each day. A treatment-as-usual group received no pills. Primary outcome included changes of body weight. Secondary outcomes were change of eating behavior and self-management abilities. After 4 weeks we found that participants in the open-label placebo condition lost more weight than the treatment-as-usual group. Furthermore, OLP treatment affected eating behavior. No effects for self-management abilities were found. Although further research is necessary, open-label placebos might help individuals to lose weight.

Working with patients' treatment expectations - what we can learn from homeopathy

The usual homeopathic remedy, "globules," does not contain any pharmacologically active ingredient. However, many patients and practitioners report beneficial effects of homeopathic treatment on various health outcomes. Experimental and clinical research of the last two decades analyzing the underlying mechanisms of the placebo effect could explain this phenomenon, with patients' treatment expectations as the predominant mechanism. Treatment expectations can be optimized through various factors, such as prior information, communication, and treatment context. This narrative review analyses how homeopathy successfully utilizes these factors. Subsequently, it is discussed what evidence-based medicine could learn from homeopathic practice to optimize treatment expectations (e.g., using an empathic, patient-centered communication style, deliberately selecting objects in practice rooms, or using clear treatment rituals and salient contextual stimuli) and thereby treatment effectiveness. Homeopathic remedy does not work beyond the placebo effect but is recommended or prescribed as an active treatment by those who believe in it. Thus, practitioners need to understand the manner in which homeopathy (as an example of inert treatment) works and are advised to reintegrate its underlying effective placebo mechanisms into evidence-based medicine. This promises to increase treatment efficacy, tolerability, satisfaction, and compliance with evidence-based treatments, and addresses the desires patients are trying to satisfy in homeopathy in an ethical, fully informed way that is grounded in evidence-based medicine.

Change in pain expectations but no open-label placebo analgesia: An experimental study using the heat pain paradigm

BACKGROUND

Open-label placebos (OLP) prescribed without deception and with a convincing rationale have been shown to evoke powerful treatment effects. Patients' treatment expectations seem to influence the magnitude of the effect.

OBJECTIVE

We examined if two different OLP rationales increased pain tolerance and reduced pain intensity and unpleasantness in a standardized heat pain experiment.

METHODS

Participants (N = 71) who self-reported reoccurring pain for at least the last 3 months were randomly assigned to one of three groups. We compared a personal-emotional and a scientific-matter-of-fact rationale with a control group (CG) that received the same placebo without any rationale. The rationale suggested a desensitizing effect on pain perception and improved pain coping of the placebo, whereas in the CG it was introduced as an ointment for measurement. The primary outcomes were pre-post changes in pain tolerance, expected and experienced pain intensity and unpleasantness.

RESULTS

Participants showed a decrease in expected pain intensity, but not expected pain unpleasantness for both rationales. There were no differences in pain tolerance and experienced pain intensity and unpleasantness.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that evoking positive treatment expectations is not sufficient to elicit an OLP response. Possibly, the magnitude of expectations change in this study was not powerful enough to evoke an OLP effect. Additionally, it is possible that OLP effects in pain are unrelated to positive treatment expectations. The failure of OLP in our study is in contrast to a number of previous studies examining the effects of OLP in experimental and clinical pain.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study provides evidence that positive treatment expectations are not sufficient to evoke an open-label placebo effect in a standardized heat pain experiment. We showed that two different rationales improved participants treatment expectations, but failed to evoke a placebo effect in comparison to a control group that received the same placebo, labelled as an ointment to improve measurement quality.

Choice over placebo administration enhances open-label placebo hypoalgesia

ABSTRACT

Many studies indicate that deceptively administered placebos can improve pain outcomes. However, the deception involved presents an ethical barrier to translation because it violates informed consent and patient autonomy. Open-label placebos (OLPs), inert treatments that are openly administered as placebos, have been proposed as an ethically acceptable alternative. Early studies have suggested that OLP can improve pain outcomes, but important questions remain as to how to maximise OLP hypoalgesia to improve treatment outcomes in pain patients. This study investigated whether providing choice over when to administer an OLP treatment has the capacity to enhance OLP hypoalgesia using an electrocutaneous pain paradigm. One hundred thirty-two healthy volunteers were randomised to 3 types of treatment: OLP with choice, OLP without choice, and no treatment (natural history). The OLP groups were further randomised such that half were tested with a consistent pain intensity and the other half were tested with variable pain intensity to mimic day-to-day variability in pain intensity in health settings. The results indicated that treatment provided with choice exhibited greater OLP hypoalgesia than that provided without choice and that greater expectancy mediated this effect. Of interest, there was no evidence for OLP hypoalgesia without choice relative to natural history. Furthermore, variability in pain intensity did not affect OLP hypoalgesia. The current findings present novel evidence that choice over treatment administration may be a cheap and effective strategy for boosting the efficacy of OLPs in the clinical care of pain.

Open-label placebos enhance test performance and reduce anxiety in learner drivers: a randomized controlled trial

Passing the driving school test can be very challenging, especially in big cities, where up to 52% of all students fail this test. Consequently, many learner drivers experience stress and anxiety. For some learner drivers these feelings can be extreme and negatively affect the performance in the driving test. Different strategies to face anxiety and stress are known, including, for example, psychological or pharmacological approaches and even placebo pills. Recent intriguing findings have also demonstrated that placebos without deception, so-called open-label placebos, successfully reduce anxiety. Here we aimed to test effects of this novel treatment for learner drivers. We investigated whether open-label placebos affect test performance and feelings of anxiety in learner drivers. Sixty-eight healthy participants (mean age 21.94 years, 26 females) were randomized into two groups. The open-label placebo group received placebo pills two weeks before the driving test (two pills each day). The control group received no treatment. Results revealed that the open-label placebo group experienced significantly less anxiety than the control group before the test (measured with the State-Trait-Anxiety-Inventory, STAI-S, and the German Test Anxiety Inventory, PAF). Moreover, in the open-label placebo group less learner drivers failed the driving test (29.41% vs. 52.95%). The results suggest that open-label placebos may provide an ethical unproblematic way to experience less anxiety and might also enhance the probability to pass the driving test. We discuss possible mechanisms of open-label placebos and limitations of our findings.

Boosting open-label placebo effects in acute induced pain in healthy adults (BOLPAP-study): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Introduction

Pain is a highly prevalent symptom in the hospital setting, but treatment options remain limited. Harnessing the placebo effect in an ethical manner could provide a new possibility to reduce pain in clinical practice. So called open-label placebos (OLP) have been shown to elicit significant effects in reducing acute pain. But, before implementation, more knowledge concerning the properties of OLPs is needed. This study aims to assess the duration of analgesic effects from OLP and to determine the possibility of boosting such effects.

Methods and analysis

This is the protocol of an ongoing (first patient enrolled in March 2023) single-site randomized trial investigating OLPs in two parts (i.e., substudies). In both parts, pain will be induced in healthy adults using an intradermal electrical stimulation model. Participants in Part 1 will have two study visits: An interventional visit with one OLP injection accompanied by an evidence-based treatment rationale and a control visit with no treatment. For Part 2, participants will be randomized into three groups: (1) A fixed-time "Booster" group including one single repetition of the OLP injection at a fixed time point, (2) an on-demand "Booster" group including one single repetition of the OLP injection on-demand, and (3) a control group who will receive just one OLP injection. Differences in pain ratings over time (using the Numeric Rating Scale) will be analyzed with several two-sample t-tests. The time point for a fixed-time "Booster" in Part 2 will be derived from Part 1 with additional statistical tools such as a broken-stick mixed-effect model.

Discussion

This study aims to further characterize the analgesic effects of OLPs. In doing so, it will provide valuable information needed for later implementation of OLPs in clinical practice, where they could play a role in multimodal analgesic concepts.

Ethics and dissemination

The "Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz" (BASEC 2023-00296) approved the study protocol. Results of the analysis will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Clinical Trial Registration

This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05819476) and is listed in the Swiss National Registry at kofam.ch (SNCTP000005470).

Placebo and nocebo effects and mechanisms associated with pharmacological interventions: an umbrella review

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to summarise the existing knowledge about placebo and nocebo effects associated with pharmacological interventions and their mechanisms.

DESIGN

Umbrella review, adopting the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 tool for critical appraisal.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial were searched in September 2022, without any time restriction, for systematic reviews, narrative reviews, original articles. Results were summarised through narrative synthesis, tables, 95% CI.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Mechanisms underlying placebo/nocebo effects and/or their effect sizes.

RESULTS

The databases search identified 372 studies, for a total of 158 312 participants, comprising 41 systematic reviews, 312 narrative reviews and 19 original articles. Seventy-three per cent of the examined systematic reviews were of high quality.Our findings revealed that mechanisms underlying placebo and/or nocebo effects have been characterised, at least in part, for: pain, non-noxious somatic sensation, Parkinson's disease, migraine, sleep disorders, intellectual disability, depression, anxiety, dementia, addiction, gynaecological disorders, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, immune and endocrine systems, cardiovascular and respiratory systems, gastrointestinal disorders, skin diseases, influenza and related vaccines, oncology, obesity, physical and cognitive performance. Their magnitude ranged from 0.08 to 2.01 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.89) for placebo effects and from 0.32 to 0.90 (95% CI 0.24 to 1.00) for nocebo effects.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a valuable tool for clinicians and researchers, identifying both results ready for clinical practice and gaps to address in the near future.

FUNDING

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy with the 'Finanziamento Ponte 2022' grant.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023392281.

Replication crisis and placebo studies: rebooting the bioethical debate

A growing body of cross-cultural survey research shows high percentages of clinicians report using placebos in clinical settings. One motivation for clinicians using placebos is to help patients by capitalising on the placebo effect's reported health benefits. This is not surprising, given that placebo studies are burgeoning, with increasing calls by researchers to ethically harness placebo effects among patients. These calls propose placebos/placebo effects offer clinically significant benefits to patients. In this paper, we argue many findings in this highly cited and 'hot' field have not been independently replicated. Evaluating the ethicality of placebo use in clinical practice involves first understanding whether placebos are efficacious clinically. Therefore, it is crucial to consider placebo research in the context of the replication crisis and what can be learnt to advance evidence-based knowledge of placebos/placebo effects and their clinical relevance (or lack thereof). In doing so, our goal in this paper is to motivate both increased awareness of replication issues and to help pave the way for advances in scientific research in the field of placebo studies to better inform ethical evidence-based practice. We argue that, only by developing a rigorous evidence base can we better understand how, if at all, placebos/placebo effects can be harnessed ethically in clinical settings.

Placebo effects in osteoarthritis: implications for treatment and drug development

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis worldwide, affecting ~500 million people, yet there are no effective treatments to halt its progression. Without any structure-modifying agents, management of OA focuses on ameliorating pain and improving function. Treatment approaches typically have modest efficacy, and many patients have contraindications to recommended pharmacological treatments. Drug development for OA is hindered by the gradual and progressive nature of the disease and the targeting of established disease in clinical trials. Additionally, new medications for OA cannot receive regulatory approval without demonstrating improvements in both structure (pathological features of OA) and symptoms (reduced pain and/or improved function). In clinical trials, people with OA show high 'placebo responses', which hamper the ability to identify new effective treatments. Placebo responses refer to the individual variability in response to placebos given in the context of clinical trials and other settings. Placebo effects refer specifically to short-lasting improvements in symptoms that occur because of physiological changes. To mitigate the effects of the placebo phenomenon, we must first understand what it is, how it manifests, how to identify placebo responders in OA trials and how these insights can be used to improve clinical trials in OA. Leveraging placebo responses and effects in clinical practice might provide additional avenues to augment symptom management of OA.

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.

The roles of expectation, comparator, administration route, and population in open-label placebo effects: a network meta-analysis

Three meta-analyses have demonstrated the clinical potential of open-label placebos (OLPs). However, there is a need to synthesize the existing evidence through more complex analyses that would make it possible to answer questions beyond mere efficacy. Such analyses would serve to improve the understanding of why and under what circumstances OLPs work (e.g., depending on induced expectations or across different control groups). To answer these questions, we conducted the first network meta-analyses in the field of OLPs. Our analyses revealed that OLPs could be beneficial in comparison to no treatment in nonclinical (12 trials; 1015 participants) and clinical populations (25 trials; 2006 participants). Positive treatment expectations were found to be important for OLPs to work. Also, OLP effects can vary depending on the comparator used. While the kind of administration route had no substantial impact on the OLP effects, effects were found to be larger in clinical populations than in nonclinical populations. These results suggest that the expectation, comparator, administration route, and population should be considered when designing and interpreting OLP studies.

Susceptibility to Nocebo Hyperalgesia, Dispositional Optimism, and Trait Anxiety as Predictors of Nocebo Hyperalgesia Reduction

OBJECTIVES

The current paper explores the psychological predictors of nocebo hyperalgesia and whether the reduction of nocebo hyperalgesia can be predicted by susceptibility to nocebo hyperalgesia and psychological characteristics.

METHODS

Nocebo effects on pressure pain were first experimentally induced in 83 healthy female participants through conditioning with open-label instructions about the pain-worsening function of a sham TENS device to assess susceptibility to nocebo hyperalgesia. Participants were then randomized to 1 out of 2 nocebo-reduction conditions (counterconditioning/extinction) or to continued nocebo-conditioning (control), each combined with open-label instructions about the new sham device function. Dispositional optimism, trait and state anxiety, pain catastrophizing, fear of pain, and body vigilance were assessed at baseline.

RESULTS

The results showed that lower optimism and higher trait anxiety were related to a stronger induction of nocebo hyperalgesia. Moreover, a stronger induction of nocebo hyperalgesia and higher trait anxiety predicted a larger nocebo reduction across interventions. Also, nocebo hyperalgesia and optimism moderated the effects of the nocebo-reduction interventions, whereby larger nocebo hyperalgesia and lower optimism were associated with a larger nocebo reduction after counterconditioning, compared with control, and also extinction for larger nocebo hyperalgesia.

DISCUSSION

Our findings suggest that open-label conditioning leads to stronger nocebo hyperalgesia when trait anxiety is high and dispositional optimism is low, while these psychological characteristics, along with larger nocebo hyperalgesia, also predict open-label counterconditioning to be an effective nocebo-reduction strategy. Susceptibility to nocebo hyperalgesia, trait anxiety, and dispositional optimism might be indicators of a flexible pain regulatory system.

The impact of pharmaceutical form and simulated side effects in an open-label-placebo RCT for improving psychological distress in highly stressed students

Open-label placebo (OLP) may be utilized to reduce psychological distress. Yet, potential contextual effects have not been explored. We investigated the impact of pharmaceutical form and the simulation of side effects in a parallel group RCT (DRKS00030987). A sample of 177 highly stressed university students at risk of depression were randomly assigned by computer generated tables to a 1-week intervention with active or passive OLP nasal spray or passive OLP capsule or a no-treatment control group. After the intervention, groups differed significantly in depressive symptoms but not regarding other outcomes of psychological distress (stress, anxiety, sleep quality, somatization), well-being or treatment expectation. OLP groups benefitted significantly more compared to the no-treatment control group (d = .40), OLP nasal spray groups significantly more than the OLP capsule group (d = .40) and the active OLP group significantly more than the passive OLP groups (d = .42). Interestingly, before intervention, most participants, regardless of group assignment, believed that the OLP capsule would be most beneficial. The effectiveness of OLP treatments seems to be highly influenced by the symptom focus conveyed by the OLP rationale. Moreover, pharmaceutical form and simulation of side effects may modulate efficacy, while explicit treatment expectation seems to play a minor role.

Imaginary pills and open-label placebos can reduce test anxiety by means of placebo mechanisms

Placebos have been shown to be beneficial for various conditions even if administered with full transparency. Hence, so-called open-label placebos (OLPs) offer a new way to harness placebo effects ethically. To take this concept one step further, this study aimed at evaluating placebo effects without the use of a physical placebo, i.e., by imagining taking a pill. Healthy students (N = 173) with self-reported test anxiety were either randomized to an imaginary pill (IP; n = 55), an OLP (n = 59) or a control group (CG; n = 59). Both intervention groups were instructed to take two pills daily for three weeks. Primary outcome was test anxiety, secondary outcomes were sleep quality, general well-being and test performance. Groups test anxiety differed at study-endpoint, F(2,169) = 11.50, p < .001. Test anxiety was lower in the intervention groups compared to the CG, t(169) = - 4.44, p < .001, d = - 0.71. The interventions did not differ significantly, i.e., both were similarly efficacious, t(169) = 0.61, p = .540, d = 0.11. The interaction between group and time in explaining test anxiety was significant, F(5,407.93) = 6.13, p < .001. OLPs and IPs reduced test anxiety in healthy participants compared to the CG. This finding opens the door for a novel and ethical method to harness placebo effects.

Deceptive and open-label placebo effects in experimentally induced guilt: a randomized controlled trial in healthy subjects

Placebos are known to yield significant effects in many conditions. We examined deceptive and open-label placebo effects on guilt, which is important for self-regulation and a symptom of mental disorders. Following an experimental induction of guilt, healthy subjects were randomized to deceptive placebo (DP; n = 35), open-label placebo (OLP; n = 35), or no treatment (NT; n = 39). The primary outcome was guilt responses assessed in area under the curve (AUC). Secondary outcomes were shame, guilt, and affect. We hypothesized that DP and OLP would reduce guilt compared to NT. Guilt responses were higher in the NT group than in the placebo groups (estimate = 2.03, 95% CI = 0.24-3.82, d = 0.53), whereas AUC guilt did not differ significantly between the placebo groups (estimate = -0.38, 95% CI = -2.52-1.76, d = -0.09). Placebos are efficacious in reducing acute guilt responses, regardless of the placebo administration (i.e., open vs. deceptive). Furthermore, we observed narrative-specific effects with significant changes of guilt but not shame, pride, or affect. These results indicate not only that guilt is amenable to placebos but also that placebos can be administered in an ethical and potentially emotion-specific manner.

Neurofeedback as placebo: a case of unintentional deception?

The use of placebo in clinical practice has been the topic of extensive debate in the bioethics literature, with much scholarship focusing on concerns regarding deception. While considerations of placebo without deception have largely centred on open-label placebo, this paper considers a different kind of ethical quandary regarding placebo without an intent to deceive-one where the provider believes a treatment is effective due to a direct physiological mechanism, even though that belief may not be supported by rigorous scientific evidence. This is often the case with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) techniques and also with some mainstream therapies that have not proven to be better than sham. Using one such CAM technique as a case study-electroencephalography (EEG) neurofeedback for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-this paper explores the ethics of providing therapies that may have some beneficial effect, although one that is likely due to placebo effect. First, we provide background on EEG neurofeedback for ADHD and its evidence base, showing how it has proven to be equivalent to-but not better than-sham neurofeedback. Subsequently, we explore whether offering therapies that are claimed to work via specific physical pathways, but may actually work due to the placebo effect, constitute deception. We suggest that this practice may constitute unintentional deception regarding mechanism of action. Ultimately, we argue that providers have increased information provision obligations when offering treatments that diverge from standard of care and we make recommendations for mitigating unintentional deception.

‘It's not my greengrocer, it's someone from the medical profession’: A qualitative study regarding acceptability of deceptive and open‐label placebo prescribing in France

OBJECTIVES

To explore participants' views regarding clinical use of deceptive placebo (DP) and open-label placebo (OLP) treatments.

DESIGN

Qualitative thematic analysis.

METHODS

We conducted eight semi-structured interviews with healthy participants in an experimental trial comparing the efficacy of OLP and DP (Clinical trials n°NCT03934138). Interviewees' opinions were solicited following administration of placebos during the trial. Interviews were analysed using data-driven analysis.

RESULTS

We identified three themes. First, participants considered trust central in judging a placebo treatment to be acceptable. They expressed the importance of an implicit trust both in their health care professionals' (HCPs') competency as well as in the profession at large. A second theme was the perception of how placebo treatments might solve health problems. Acceptability of both types of placebo treatments was dependent on the perception patients had about the treatment solving their problem and/or doubts regarding the effectiveness of placebos The third theme encompassed perceived risks associated with placebo prescribing. Some comments viewed placebos positively as facilitating reduced medication intake. However, participants also identified the potential of placebos to generate adverse side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment acceptability by patients is a pre-requisite, alongside effectiveness, to harness OLPs in clinical care. Our study identified the importance of trust in HCPs prescribing placebos, the clinical effectiveness of placebos and the potential risks of these interventions in assessing their acceptability. Future research is needed to explore the contexts in which placebos might be used, and how best to communicate information about placebo interventions.

Even when you know it is a placebo, you experience less sadness: First evidence from an experimental open-label placebo investigation

BACKGROUND

Recent studies demonstrate substantial effects of deceptive placebo on experimentally induced sadness, even on autonomic activity. Whether deception is necessary, remains to be elucidated. We investigated the effect of an open-label placebo (OLP) treatment, i.e. an openly administered placebo delivered with a convincing rationale for its sadness-protecting effect.

METHODS

Eighty-four healthy females were randomized to an OLP group or a no-treatment control group. All participants received the same detailed information about the OLP effect, only the OLP group received an OLP nasal spray. Before and after the OLP intervention, participants underwent a sad mood induction procedure combining self-deprecating statements (Velten's method) and sad music. Sadness was assessed by the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS-X). Autonomic activity was measured continuously.

RESULTS

Participants in the OLP group reported a significantly attenuated increase in sadness upon mood induction and less sadness after induction compared to the control group (d = 0.79). Regardless of intervention, heart rate decreased during mood inductions with a more pronounced deceleration in the second mood induction.

LIMITATIONS

Generalizability is limited due to the selective sample and the reliance on an experimentally controlled mood induction.

CONCLUSION

OLP treatment had a beneficial effect on perceived sadness, at least at the subjective level. Hence, deception may not necessarily be required for placebos to modulate experienced sad mood. Investigating the beneficial effects of OLP in (sub-)clinical samples would seem a promising and required next step towards a clinical use of placebo-associated positive treatment expectations.

Analgetische Placeboeffekte und Implikationen für die Behandlung chronischer Schmerzen

Die Behandlung von chronischen Schmerzen kann langwierig sein. Erste Ansätze zur Nutzung von Placeboeffekten bei der Behandlung von chronischen Schmerzen zeigen erfolgversprechende Ergebnisse und können dazu beitragen, die z. T. frustranen Therapieoptionen zu verbessern. Daher sollten Placeboeffekte zur verbesserten Behandlung genutzt werden. Im derzeitigen Modell zur Entstehung von Placeboeffekten spielt die Erwartung eine zentrale Rolle. Eine positive oder negative Erwartung wird durch psychologische und biologische „State“- und „Trait“-Faktoren der Patient:innen sowie die früheren Lernerfahrungen, die der:die Patient:in mitbringt, beeinflusst. Aus diesem Modell ergeben sich Implikationen für die klinische Praxis: Positive Erwartungen sollten unterstützt werden, wobei unrealistische Erwartungen wiederum den Placeboeffekt reduzieren. Negative Erwartungen sollten kritisch diskutiert werden. Es sollte im interdisziplinären Team eine gemeinsame Botschaft an die Patient:innen vermittelt werden. Open-Label-Placebos können als Intervention genutzt werden, um die Selbstwirksamkeit zu steigern.

Efficacy of amitriptyline in pediatric functional abdominal pain disorders: A randomized placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Amitriptyline improves symptoms in functional abdominal pain disorders (FAPD) in adults with variable results in pediatric studies. The study aims to evaluate the efficacy of amitriptyline in pediatric FAPD.

METHODS

In this open-label trial, children (≤ 18 years) diagnosed as FAPD based on ROME IV criteria were randomized to amitriptyline or placebo for 12 weeks. Post-treatment improvement of pain and quality of life (QOL) from the baseline were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The mean age of 149 children (amitriptyline 75, placebo 74) was 11.3 ± 3.5 years (79 boys). There was a significant difference in pain improvement in terms of reduction in scores for intensity (3.4 vs 0.9), frequency (3.6 vs 0.6), duration (3.5 vs 0.9), and QOL (2.3 vs 0.9) between amitriptyline and placebo group (P < 0.001 in all). Responders (> 50% reduction) in pain was seen in 76% in amitriptyline compared with 14.9% in the placebo group (P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, the use of amitriptyline was the only factor predictive of response (odds ratio 24.1, 95% confidence interval: 9.1-64.6, P < 0.001). Minor adverse events were comparable between the groups (25.3% vs 13.5%, respectively, P = 0.07). Eighty-nine percent of children (24/27) who had extended treatment duration (6.8 ± 1.8 months) had pain improvement. After discontinuation of amitriptyline, 70% had sustained response over a mean follow up of 15.84 ± 5.6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

A 3-month trial of amitriptyline gives sustained relief of pain in two-thirds of children with FAPD. The safety profile of the drug and its efficacy necessitate more frequent use in the clinical settings.

Optimising treatment expectations in chronic lower back pain through observing others: a study protocol for a randomised clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Chronic lower back pain (CLBP) is a frequent cause of medical consultations worldwide, and it results in decreased quality of life and disability. Current treatments for CLBP are often not effective, and alternatives are urgently needed. Three promising possibilities have emerged: (1) open-label placebo treatment reduces chronic pain, (2) placebo treatment is as efficacious as opioid treatment with a high correlation between patient expectation and treatment outcome, and (3) observing positive effects in another patient can improve functional capacity. We hypothesise that treatment expectations can be positively influenced through social observation and improve treatment outcome.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In our clinical trial, we will randomise patients with CLBP into five groups. Two groups receive either a 3 week course of treatment with an analgesic (ANA) (metamizole/dipyrone) or with open-label placebos (OLP). For one of each group, we will build treatment expectations through observational learning and assess its impact on the treatment. For this purpose, one group each will watch either a positive or a neutral video. The intervention groups will be compared with a control group that will not be given any medication or observational learning. Participants will be recruited via all institutions in the Hamburg metropolitan area that treat patients with CLBP. Patients are eligible for inclusion if they are at least 18 years or older, have CLBP (of at least 3 months duration), and agree to potentially receive an active ANA or an OLP. Patients with pain-related "red flags" will be excluded. The study requires 150 participants (30 participants per group) to assess the differences in the primary outcome, pain intensity. Secondary outcomes include changes in treatment expectations, anxiety, comorbid depression, stress-related neuroendocrine measures, functional and structural connectivity, functional capacity, and ANA consumption. All outcomes and treatment expectations will be measured before and after the intervention and 3 months post-intervention.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained in January 2020 from the Hamburg Medical Ethics Council (ref number PV7067). Outcomes will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at national and international conference meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The approved trial protocol was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) and can be found at drks.de (Identifier: DRKS00024418).

Open-Label Placebo Interventions With Drinking Water and Their Influence on Perceived Physical and Mental Well-Being

In recent years, the postulation that deception is necessary for placebos to have an effect on pain relief or increased well-being has come into question. Latest studies have shown that an openly administered mock drug works just as well as a deceptively administered placebo on certain complaints. This open-label placebo effect has primarily been used in the area of pain treatment so far. This study is the first to examine the effect of such placebos on healthy individuals with the use of drinking water. In two experiments, participants were required to use certain specified water bottles for their daily drinking water consumption. At the beginning of Experiment 1, all participants (N = 68) received one bottle of water, which they were asked to refill themselves each day during a 2-week intervention period. In Experiment 2, participants (N = 75) received a new sealed water bottle every day. In both experiments, participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups: no treatment (control group CG), open-label placebo without rationale (OPR^–), open-label placebo with rationale (OPR⁺), and open-label placebo with additional rationale in a suggested relaxed state (group OPR⁺⁺). We conducted baseline and post-treatment measurements of the subjective perceived physical and mental well-being of the participants. In Experiment 1, only the OPR⁺⁺ group reported enhanced vitality at the post-treatment level compared to the other groups. In Experiment 2, post-treatment measurements showed improvements for the OPR⁺⁺ group in the Physical Performance Capability, Mental Performance Capability, Emotional Balance, Overall Recovery, Negative Emotional State, and Overall Stress categories compared to the other groups. Our results support the idea that placebos with an additional rationale in a suggestive relaxed state are more effective than with just a rationale in a normal state. Furthermore, our study shows the tendency that OLP⁺⁺ in the form of water with health claims may be more effective when the water is given in several sealed bottles separately than in one sealed but refillable bottle.

The placebo and nocebo effects in functional urology

A placebo is an inert substance normally used in clinical trials for comparison with an active substance. However, a placebo has been shown to have an effect on its own; commonly known as the placebo effect. A placebo is an essential component in the design of conclusive clinical trials but has itself become the focus of intense research. The placebo effect is partly the result of positive expectations of the recipient on the state of health. Conversely, a nocebo effect is when negative expectations from a substance lead to poor treatment outcomes and/or adverse events. Randomized controlled trials in functional urology have demonstrated the importance of the placebo and nocebo effects across different diseases such as overactive bladder, urinary incontinence, lower urinary tract symptoms and interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome, as well as male and female sexual dysfunction. Understanding the true nature of the placebo-nocebo complex and the scope of its effect in functional urology could help urologists to maximize the positive effects of this phenomenon while minimizing its potentially negative effects.

Open-Label Placebo Treatment for Acute Postoperative Pain (OLP-POP Study): Study Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction: Open-label placebos have been proposed as way of using long recognized analgesic placebo effects in an ethical manner. Recent evidence shows efficacy of open-label placebos for clinical conditions, but there is need for more research on open-label placebos in acute pain. In the treatment of acute postoperative pain, minimization of opioid related side effects remains one of the key challenges. Therefore, this study aims at investigating the potential of adding unconditioned open-label placebos to treatment as usual as a means of reducing opioid consumption and its related side effects in patients with acute postoperative pain. Methods and Analysis: This is the protocol of an ongoing single site randomized controlled trial. The first patient was enrolled in May 2020. In total, 70 patients suffering from acute postoperative pain following dorsal lumbar interbody fusion are randomized to either a treatment as usual group or an experimental intervention group. The treatment as usual group consists of participants receiving a patient-controlled morphine pump. On day 1 and 2 post-surgery, patients in the intervention group receive, in addition to treatment as usual, two open-label placebo injections per day along with an evidence-based treatment rationale explaining the mechanisms of placebos. The primary outcome is measured by means of self-administered morphine during day 1 and 2 post-surgery. Several other outcome measures including pain intensity and adverse events as well as potential predictors of placebo response are assessed. Analysis of covariance will be used to answer the primary research question and additional statistical techniques such as generalized linear mixed models will be applied to model the temporal course of morphine consumption. Discussion: This study will provide valuable insights into the efficacy of open-label placebos in acute pain and will potentially constitute an important step toward the implementation of open-label placebos in the clinical management of acute postoperative pain. In addition, it will shed light on a cost-efficient and patient-centered strategy to reduce opioid consumption and its related side effects, without any loss in pain management efficacy. Ethics and Dissemination: The "Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz" (BASEC2020-00099) approved the study protocol. Results of the analysis will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Clinical Trial Registration: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04339023) and is listed in the Swiss national registry at kofam.ch (SNCTP000003720).

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.

Physician perspectives on placebo ethics

Clinical use of placebos is controversial among bioethicists. While placebos have been shown to provide benefit for patients with some conditions, offering placebos to patients without disclosing that they are placebos raises ethical concerns, including the concern that this lack of transparency about the nature of placebos amounts to deceiving patients. Some have proposed open-label placebos (OLPs) as an ethically preferable alternative: patients are offered placebos and told that the treatment being offered is a placebo. To contribute to the ongoing discussion about the ethics and feasibility of clinical use of placebos, we conducted focus groups to explore physician attitudes about clinical use of placebos, including non-disclosed and OLPs, and physician attitudes about the underlying ethical issues. We found that while the non-transparency and deceptiveness of offering non-disclosed placebos was a concern for some physicians, their primary focus when considering both non-disclosed and OLPs was identifying and weighing potential harms and benefits to patients. Some participants also felt further research and training in prescribing OLPs would be needed before they would be willing to use them in their practice.

Open-label placebo treatment to improve relaxation training effects in healthy psychology students: a randomized controlled trial

Placebos, that are administered with deception, can reduce stress and increase relaxation. The present study investigated an open-label placebo (OLP) to improve the effects of Progressive Muscle Relaxation (PMR) training. A total of 160 psychology students were randomly assigned to a 14-day PMR course with or without daily OLP treatment. The placebo was administered along with an explanation of placebo effects and the verbal suggestion that the OLP activates the body’s natural relaxation response. The relaxation instructions for home practice were delivered via a smartphone app, which was also used for the evaluation of the exercises. The participants of the OLP group completed more PMR exercises (M = 9.75) than the group without a placebo (M = 8.15). The two groups did not differ in reported exercise-related changes in relaxation level. On average, the OLP group rated the effects of the placebo as very low and was characterized by a higher drop-out rate compared to the group without OLP. Some participants experienced the OLP as negative. In conclusion, factors that influence the acceptance of OLP treatment require further investigation.

Conditioned open-label placebo for opioid reduction after spine surgery: a randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT

Placebo effects have traditionally involved concealment or deception. However, recent evidence suggests that placebo effects can also be elicited when prescribed transparently as "open-label placebos" (OLPs), and that the pairing of an unconditioned stimulus (eg, opioid analgesic) with a conditioned stimulus (eg, placebo pill) can lead to the conditioned stimulus alone reducing pain. In this randomized control trial, we investigated whether combining conditioning with an OLP (COLP) in the immediate postoperative period could reduce daily opioid use and postsurgical pain among patients recovering from spine surgery. Patients were randomized to COLP or treatment as usual, with both groups receiving unrestricted access to a typical opioid-based postoperative analgesic regimen. The generalized estimating equations method was used to assess the treatment effect of COLP on daily opioid consumption and pain during postoperative period from postoperative day (POD) 1 to POD 17. Patients in the COLP group consumed approximately 30% less daily morphine milligram equivalents compared with patients in the treatment as usual group during POD 1 to 17 (-14.5 daily morphine milligram equivalents; 95% CI: [-26.8, -2.2]). Daily worst pain scores were also lower in the COLP group (-1.0 point on the 10-point scale; 95% CI: [-2.0, -0.1]), although a significant difference was not detected in average daily pain between the groups (-0.8 point; 95% CI: [-1.7, 0.2]). These findings suggest that COLP may serve as a potential adjuvant analgesic therapy to decrease opioid consumption in the early postoperative period, without increasing pain.

A novel (targeted) kinesio taping application on chronic low back pain: Randomized clinical trial

The aim of the present clinical trial is to evaluate the efficacy of kinesio taping on patients with chronic low back pain, when the exploration identifies skin/fascia mobilization as a factor that could modify the treatment effect. This study is a randomized controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis. Sixty-two participants with chronic low back pain were therefore recruited from a tertiary referral hospital. Targeted kinesio taping, according to skin/fascia mobility exploration, was applied in the experimental group (17 female/13 male; 49.47 ± 11.15 years) once a week for four sessions. The control group (17 female/14 male; 48.87 ± 9.09 years) underwent a placebo taping application. At post-treatment time there was a statistically significant reduction both in disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) and pain (Numeric Pain Rating Scale) in the experimental group (disability: -2.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.56 to -1.21, P < .001; pain: -1.58, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.54 P = .001) and the control group (disability: -1.82, 95% CI -3.46 to -0.17 P = .025; pain: -1.30, 95% CI -2.32 to -0.28 P = .008). However, at six months, these changes only remained significant in the experimental group (disability: -2.95, 95% CI -4.72 to -1.18, P < .001; pain: -1.06, 95% CI -2.07 to -0.04, P < .05). As a conclusion, the application of targeted kinesio taping produced a significant reduction in pain and disability, at 4 weeks and at 6 moths follow-up, although there were no differences between groups at any measurement time point.

Written expressive disclosure in adults with irritable bowel syndrome: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The benefits of written expressive disclosure (WED) to health are documented in a variety of healthy and clinical populations. This study investigates the effect of WED on health-related outcomes in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

METHODS

Adults (N = 189) meeting Rome III criteria for IBS were randomly assigned to write about their: (1) deepest thoughts and feelings about the most stressful life event of the past five years (n = 67), (2) deepest thoughts and feelings about their IBS (n = 61) or (3) daily activities in an objective manner (control condition; n = 61). Participants completed four 20-min writing sessions over 2-6 weeks. Gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, healthcare utilization, health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), pain catastrophizing, and pain self-efficacy were assessed at baseline, one month post-writing completion, and three months post-writing completion.

RESULTS

A significant group (combined WED vs. control) X time interaction was detected for healthcare utilization, F(1,147) = 6.16, p = 0.014, η² = 0.04. Specifically, number of GI-related medical appointments significantly increased from baseline to 3-month follow-up in the control group, while no significant change was observed in the combined WED group. Among the WED group, individuals assigned to write about their IBS experienced greater improvements in pain self-efficacy than those assigned to write about a life stressor, F(1,92) = 3.89, p = 0.024, η² = 0.08. GI symptom severity, HR-QOL, and pain catastrophizing improved significantly across groups over time, with no significant between-group differences.

CONCLUSION

Writing about one's deepest thoughts and feelings about IBS may increase pain self-efficacy and reduce healthcare utilization compared to control writing in adults with IBS.

Open- and Closed-Label Placebo and Nocebo Suggestions About a Sham Transdermal Patch

OBJECTIVE

Placebo effects may occur when it is known that an inert substance is given (i.e., open-label placebo). It is not yet clear whether these effects are similar to concealed (i.e., closed-label) placebo effects for itch or whether nocebo effects can be induced under open-label conditions.

METHODS

Healthy volunteers (n = 112) were randomized to an open-label (I) or closed-label (II) positive suggestions group, or an open-label (III) or closed-label (IV) negative suggestions group. Participants were told, as cover story, that a transdermal caffeine patch would be applied that positively influences cognitive abilities and, as a side effect, positively or negatively (depending on group allocation) influences itch. Participants in the open-label groups were given a rationale explaining placebo and nocebo effect mechanisms. Itch (the primary outcome) was induced at baseline and postsuggestions by histamine iontophoresis.

RESULTS

Analyses of variance revealed significantly lower itch in the positive compared with the negative suggestions groups for both open- and closed-label contexts (all, p ≤ .008, Cohen d ≥ 0.47). Self-rated skin response was less severe after positive versus negative suggestions (all, p ≤ .017, Cohen d ≥ 0.33), but no effects on physical skin response were found (all, p ≥ .23, Cohen d ≤ 0.30).

CONCLUSIONS

Itch can be reduced by positive compared with negative suggestions under both open- and closed-label conditions. These findings indicate that open-label suggestions may potentially be a tool to use placebo effects for self-reported outcomes in clinical practice, for example, by explaining the role of expectancy in treatment. It needs to be investigated further under which circumstances an open-label rationale may impact placebo and nocebo effects.Trial Registration:www.trialregister.nl; NTR7174.

Effects of open-label placebo on pain, functional disability, and spine mobility in patients with chronic back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Chronic back pain (CBP) is a major global health problem, while its treatment is hampered by a lack of efficacy and restricted safety profile of common frontline therapies. The present trial aims to determine whether a 3-week open-label placebo treatment reduces pain intensity and subjective and objective functional disability in patients with CBP. This randomized controlled trial, following a pretest-posttest design, enrolled 127 patients with CBP (pain duration >12 weeks) from the Back Pain Center, Neurology, University Hospital Essen, Germany. Patients randomized to the open-label placebo group received a 3-week open-label placebo treatment. Patients in the treatment as usual (TAU) group received no intervention. Both groups continued TAU. Primary outcome was the change in pain intensity. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported functional disability and objective measures of spine mobility and depression, anxiety, and stress. One hundred twenty two patients with CBP were randomized to the open-label placebo group (N = 63) or TAU group (N = 59). Open-label placebo application led to a larger reduction of pain intensity (-0.62 ± 0.23 vs 0.11 ± 0.17, all M ± SE, P = 0.001, d = -0.44) as well as patient-reported functional disability (3.21 ± 1.59 vs 0.65 ± 1.15, P = 0.020, d = -0.45) and depression scores (-1.07 ± 0.55 vs 0.37 ± 0.39, P = 0.010, d = -0.50) compared with TAU only. Open-label placebo treatment did not affect objective mobility parameters, anxiety and stress. Our study demonstrates that a 3-week open-label placebo treatment is safe, well tolerated and reduces pain, disability, and depressive symptoms in CBP. Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00012712.

Antipruritic Placebo Effects by Conditioning H1-antihistamine

OBJECTIVE

Allergic rhinitis symptoms can be reduced by behaviorally conditioning antihistamine. It is unclear whether these findings extend to histamine-induced itch or work when participants are informed about the conditioning procedure (open-label conditioning). The current study aims to investigate the efficacy of (open-label) antipruritic behavioral conditioning for histamine-induced itch.

METHODS

Healthy participants (n = 92; 84% female) were randomized to I) an open-label conditioned, II) closed-label conditioned, III) conditioned-not-evoked control, or IV) nonconditioned control group. A two-phase conditioning paradigm was used. During acquisition, a conditioned stimulus (CS; distinctively tasting beverage) was repeatedly paired with the H1-antihistamine levocetirizine (groups I-III). During evocation, the CS was paired with placebo (I, II), or instead of the CS, water was paired with placebo (III). The nonconditioned control group (IV) received CS with placebo in both phases. Itch after histamine iontophoresis and physiological data (i.e., spirometry, heart rate, skin conductance) were assessed. Combined conditioned and combined control groups were first compared, and analyses were repeated for separate groups.

RESULTS

Marginally lower itch was reported in the combined conditioned compared with the control groups (F(1,88) = 2.10, p = .076, ηpartial = 0.02); no differences between separate groups were found. No effects on physiological data were found, except for heart rate, which reduced significantly and consistently for control groups, and less consistently for conditioned groups (group by time interaction: F(7,80) = 2.35, p = .031, ηpartial = 0.17).

CONCLUSION

Limited support was found for the efficacy of antipruritic behavioral conditioning, regardless of whether participants were informed about the conditioning procedure. The application of open-label conditioning in patient populations should be further researched.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.trialregister.nl; ID NTR5544.

[Appearances are not deceptive: clinical evidence and new research approaches to open-label placebo]

The efficacy of placebo effects is proven in experimental, clinical and meta-analytical studies. However, harnessing placebo effects in clinical treatment contexts is hampered legally and ethically, since it has been considered necessary to conceal the inert nature of a placebo application. Interestingly, the results of recently published small, randomized trials suggest that patients can experience symptom relief after taking pills that they know lack any medication. In particular, these so-called open-label placebos (OLP) improved strongly fluctuating and individually distressing complaints such as gastrointestinal, neurological, psychosomatic and pain symptoms. Although the mechanisms are largely unknown, the open-label placebo application might be a promising way of fostering placebo effects in clinical settings. Initial study protocols already provide schedules for OLP use as an additional treatment in opioid use disorders. Likewise, the reduction of side effects, conversion effects or withdrawal symptoms through OLP applications in pharmacologically active treatments appear to serve as appropriate therapy goals. Further mechanistic studies are urgently needed to investigate the thus far only hypothetically proposed underlying mechanisms of OLP.

Putting the 'Art' Into the 'Art of Medicine': The Under-Explored Role of Artifacts in Placebo Studies

Research in social psychology demonstrates that physical environmental factors – or “artifacts” such as provider clothing and office décor – can influence health outcomes. However, the role of artifacts in augmenting or diminishing health outcomes is under-explored in the burgeoning discipline of placebo studies. In this paper, we argue that a careful consideration of artifacts may carry significant potential in informing how placebo effects can be maximized, and nocebo effects minimized in clinical settings. We discuss the potential mechanisms, including classical conditioning, response expectancy, and mindsets, by which artifacts might enhance or diminish these effects. Next, we propose testable hypotheses to investigate how placebo and nocebo effects might be elicited by artifacts in care settings, and conclude by providing innovative research designs to advance this novel research agendum.

Placebos in chronic pain: evidence, theory, ethics, and use in clinical practice

Despite their ubiquitous presence, placebos and placebo effects retain an ambiguous and unsettling presence in biomedicine. Specifically focused on chronic pain, this review examines the effect of placebo treatment under three distinct frameworks: double blind, deception, and open label honestly prescribed. These specific conditions do not necessarily differentially modify placebo outcomes. Psychological, clinical, and neurological theories of placebo effects are scrutinized. In chronic pain, conscious expectation does not reliably predict placebo effects. A supportive patient-physician relationship may enhance placebo effects. This review highlights "predictive coding" and "bayesian brain" as emerging models derived from computational neurobiology that offer a unified framework to explain the heterogeneous evidence on placebos. These models invert the dogma of the brain as a stimulus driven organ to one in which perception relies heavily on learnt, top down, cortical predictions to infer the source of incoming sensory data. In predictive coding/bayesian brain, both chronic pain (significantly modulated by central sensitization) and its alleviation with placebo treatment are explicated as centrally encoded, mostly non-conscious, bayesian biases. The review then evaluates seven ways in which placebos are used in clinical practice and research and their bioethical implications. In this way, it shows that placebo effects are evidence based, clinically relevant, and potentially ethical tools for relieving chronic pain.

[Placebos and placeboids in clinical practice: conceptual and ethical considerations]

Reflecting on results of recent placebo research, this article analyzes relevant key concepts and ethical positions. "Placeboids" and possibly open-label placebo treatments should replace any deceptive use of sham medication. Their use should give rise to a critical consideration of the modern patient-physician relationship.

Primary care providers' use of and attitudes towards placebos: An exploratory focus group study with US physicians

OBJECTIVE

To examine how primary care physicians define placebo concepts, use placebos in clinical practice, and view open-label placebos (OLPs).

DESIGN

Semi-structured focus groups that were audio-recorded and content-coded.

METHODS

Two focus groups with a total of 15 primary care physicians occurred at medical centres in the New England region of the United States. Prior experience using placebo treatments and attitudes towards open-label placebos were explored. Themes were analysed using an inductive data-driven approach.

RESULTS

Physicians displayed a nuanced understanding of placebos and placebo effects in clinical contexts which sometimes focused on relational factors. Some respondents reported that they prescribed treatments with no known pharmacological effect for certain conditions and symptoms ('impure placebos') and that such prescriptions were more common for pain disorders, functional disorders, and medically unexplained symptoms. Opinions about OLP were mixed: Some viewed OLPs favourably or considered them 'harmless'; however, others strongly rejected OLPs as disrespectful to patients. Other issues in relation to OLPs included the following: lack of guidelines, legal and reputational concerns, and the notion that such treatments would run counter to customary medical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of physicians reported prescribing impure placebos in clinical care. Although some primary care physicians were resistant to the possibility of recommending OLPs, others regarded OLPs more favourably, viewing them as potential treatments, albeit with restricted potential. Statement of contribution What is already known? Many physicians report prescribing drugs for the purposes of eliciting a placebo effect. Initial evidence for the efficacy of open-label placebos is promising. What does this study add? A more nuanced description of the circumstances under which primary care physicians report placebo prescribing. A qualitative account of physician attitudes about using open-label placebos in clinical practice.

Placebo and nocebo effects for itch and itch-related immune outcomes: A systematic review of animal and human studies

Placebo and nocebo effects can influence somatic symptoms such as pain. For itch and other dermatological symptoms these effects have been far less investigated. This review systematically integrates evidence from both animal (mainly rodents) and human trials on placebo and nocebo effects in itch, itch-related symptoms and conditions of the skin and mucous membranes, and related immune outcomes (e.g., histamine). Thirty-one animal studies, and fifty-five human studies (k = 21 healthy participants, k = 34 patients) were included. Overall, studies consistently show that placebo and nocebo effects can be induced by various methods (e.g., suggestions, conditioning and social cues), despite high heterogeneity across studies. Effects of suggestions were found consistently across subjective and behavioral parameters (e.g., itch and scratching in humans), whereas conditioning was likely to impact physiological parameters under certain conditions (e.g., conditioning of histamine levels in stressed rodents). Brain areas responsible for itch processing were associated with nocebo effects. Future research may investigate how variations in methods impact placebo and nocebo effects, and whether all symptoms and conditions can be influenced equally.

Pain Response to Open Label Placebo in Induced Acute Pain in Healthy Adult Males

Background

Open label placebos with patient education are effective in reducing chronic pain, and recent studies on their effect on pain have established interest in this field. Nevertheless, data on their effect on acute pain are scarce, and on hyperalgesia and allodynia, absent. This study assessed the effect of open label placebos on acute pain in healthy adult males and the influence of placebo education.

Methods

Thirty-two healthy males were included in this prospective, randomized, assessor-blinded crossover, single-center study assessing pain intensities (via numeric rating scale), area of hyperalgesia (von Frey filament), and allodynia (dry cotton swab) in a pain model utilizing intracutaneous electrical stimulation. The authors compared the effect of intravenous open label placebo on pain compared to no treatment. The authors further examined the effect of placebo on hyperalgesia and allodynia, and the influence of education (short vs. detailed) before placebo application. Saliva cortisol concentrations were also measured.

Results

Pain ratings (median, first to third quartile) were 21% lower during placebo treatment compared to no treatment, 4.0 (3.2 to 4.9) versus 5.1 (4.7 to 5.4), respectively (P = 0.001). The areas of hyperalgesia and allodynia were lower during placebo treatment compared to no treatment (hyperalgesia, 30 cm2 [17 to 47] vs. 55 cm2 [42 to 68], P = 0.003; allodynia, 24 cm2 [11 to 39] vs. 45 cm2 [31 to 62], P = 0.007). This corresponds to reductions of 47%. The extent of placebo education had no effect on pain. Saliva cortisol decreased significantly over time and was under the limit of detectability in the majority of participants in postbaseline measurements in both treatment branches. Baseline cortisol was not associated with the placebo effect or strength applied of current to reach defined pain ratings.

Conclusions

Open label placebos might play a role in multimodal analgesic concepts.

Editor’s Perspective

What We Already Know about This Topic

What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Pavlovian Conditioning of Immunological and Neuroendocrine Functions

The phenomenon of behaviorally conditioned immunological and neuroendocrine functions has been investigated for the past 100 yr. The observation that associative learning processes can modify peripheral immune functions was first reported and investigated by Ivan Petrovic Pavlov and his co-workers. Their work later fell into oblivion, also because so little was known about the immune system’s function and even less about the underlying mechanisms of how learning, a central nervous system activity, could affect peripheral immune responses. With the employment of a taste-avoidance paradigm in rats, this phenomenon was rediscovered 45 yr ago as one of the most fascinating examples of the reciprocal functional interaction between behavior, the brain, and peripheral immune functions, and it established psychoneuroimmunology as a new research field. Relying on growing knowledge about efferent and afferent communication pathways between the brain, neuroendocrine system, primary and secondary immune organs, and immunocompetent cells, experimental animal studies demonstrate that cellular and humoral immune and neuroendocrine functions can be modulated via associative learning protocols. These (from the classical perspective) learned immune responses are clinically relevant, since they affect the development and progression of immune-related diseases and, more importantly, are also inducible in humans. The increased knowledge about the neuropsychological machinery steering learning and memory processes together with recent insight into the mechanisms mediating placebo responses provide fascinating perspectives to exploit these learned immune and neuroendocrine responses as supportive therapies, the aim being to reduce the amount of medication required, diminishing unwanted drug side effects while maximizing the therapeutic effect for the patient’s benefit.

An Exploration of Knowledge and Attitudes of Medical Students and Rheumatologists to Placebo and Nocebo Effects: Threshold Concepts in Clinical Practice

INTRODUCTION

Understanding placebo and nocebo responses (context/meaning effects [CMEs]) is fundamental to physician agency. Specific instruction in CMEs is often lacking in medical education. Patient-practitioner interactions may challenge medical students' understanding of biomedical causality and the nexus between this, practical ethics and professionalism across various conceptual and applied aspects of CMEs. This study compared the corpus of knowledge and phronesis related to CMEs between Australian graduate medical students and rheumatologists to gain a sophisticated understanding of this relationship to inform curriculum development.

METHOD

In 2013 and 2014, the authors surveyed third-year medical students undertaking a graduate programme in an Australian medical school and Australian rheumatologists to ascertain their understanding of placebo and nocebo responses. The survey ascertained (1) the alignment of the respondents' understanding of CMEs with accepted facts and concepts; (2) opinions on the ethical status of CMEs; and (3) responses to 2 scenarios designed to explore matters of biomedical causality, practical ethics and professionalism.

RESULTS

There were 88 completed surveys returned, 53 rheumatologists and 35 students. Similar proportions within each group identified CMEs, with most (n = 79/88 [89.8%]) correctly recognising a placebo (rheumatologists: 50 [94.3%], students: 29 [82.9%]) and approximately three-quarters (n = 65/88 [73.9%]) correctly recognising nocebo effects (rheumatologists: 39 [73.6%], students: 26 [74.3%]). Statistically significant differences between practitioners and students were observed in relation to the following: placebo responders and placebo responsiveness; placebos as a 'diagnostic tool'; placebos usage in clinical practice and research, and nocebo effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians require an awareness of CMEs and the fact that they arise from and influence the effective agency of health care professionals. Curricular emphasis is needed to permit an honest assessment of the components that influence when, how and why patient outcomes arise, and how one's agency might have neutral or negative effects but could be inclined towards positive and away from negative patient outcomes.

What are the Key Characteristics of a 'Good' Psychotherapy? Calling for Ethical Patient Involvement

OBJECTIVE

The evidence-based practice movement clearly defines the relevant components of a good treatment. In the present article, we elaborate on how the active involvement of patients within psychotherapy can and should be increased in order to respect ethical considerations. Our arguments complement the requirements of evidence-based practice, and are independent of the actual psychotherapeutic treatment approach being used.

METHOD

Theoretical and ethical analysis.

RESULTS

In order to respect patient autonomy, psychotherapy needs to be transparent and honest when it comes to disclosing the relevant factors for promoting therapeutic change. It has been argued that ethical informed consent needs to include empirically supported patient information. In this paper we go one step further: we outline that fully respecting ethical considerations in psychotherapeutic treatment necessarily calls for acknowledging and strengthening the active role of patients in the course of psychotherapy. Accordingly, patients need not only to be informed openly and transparently about the planned treatment, the treatment rationale, and the expected prognosis of improvement in the course of psychotherapy, but they also need to be actively involved in the decision-making process and during the entire process of psychotherapeutic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our arguments support the tendency that can be observed in health care in recent years towards more active patient involvement across different health-care domains, but also in clinical research. This article offers an ethical perspective on the question what defines a 'good psychotherapy', which, hopefully, will help to leave behind some of the ongoing psychotherapy debates and move the field forward.

The ethics of positive thinking in healthcare

In continuation with the New Thought movement that arose in the United States in the 19th Century, there is now a massive self-help industry that markets books and seminars. This industry has also extended to healthcare in the form of positive thinking, i.e., the idea that happy thoughts are essential for health. While some of these claims may seem reasonable and commonsensical, they are not free of problems. This article posits that positive thinking has some ethical underpinnings. Extreme positive thinking may promote alternative forms of medicine that ultimately substitute effective treatment, and this is unethical. The emphasis on positive thinking for cancer patients may be too burdensome for them. Likewise, unrestricted positive thinking is not necessarily good for mental health. After considering the ethics of positive thinking, this article proposes a more realistic approach.

Deceptive but not open label placebos attenuate motion-induced nausea

OBJECTIVE

Nausea is a common complaint, known to respond to the placebo effect. Existing research has employed deception when administering placebos for nausea, limiting therapeutic translation on ethical grounds. We therefore examined the potential of non-deceptive open-label placebos (OLPs) to reduce nausea.

METHODS

Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation (GVS) and Virtual Reality (VR) were employed to model nausea in healthy volunteers across two experiments. In both experiments nausea was elicited with and without sham treatment (peppermint vapor and brain stimulation, respectively). In Exp. 1, participants (n = 61) were randomized to deceptive placebo, semi-open placebo, fully-open placebo, or control. In Exp. 2, participants (n = 93) were randomized to deceptive placebo, semi-open placebo, or control.

RESULTS

Exp. 1 found limited evidence for a placebo effect (F(1, 56) = 1.15, p = .29, η_p² =0.02), even following deceptive treatment (F(1, 56) = 1.92, p = .17, η_p²=0.03). In Exp. 2, deceptive placebo reduced nausea relative to control (F(1, 89) = 6.91, p = .010, η_p²=0.07) and OLP (F(1, 89) = 5.47, p = .022, η_p²=0.06). Pooled Bayesian analysis across experiments provided strong evidence that deceptive placebos reduce nausea relative to control (BF₁₀ = 30.91) and anecdotal evidence for the benefit of deceptive treatment over non-deceptive (BF₁₀ = 2.46) and no benefit of OLP over control (BF₁₀ = 0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

No positive evidence for OLP effects in nausea were observed. However, a deceptive effect in VR was observed. These findings raise questions regarding the efficacy of open-label intervention in nausea.