Is the rationale more important than deception? A randomized controlled trial of open-label placebo analgesia

How do placebo effects contribute to mindfulness-based analgesia? Probing acute pain effects and interactions using a randomized balanced placebo design

ABSTRACT

Recent sham-controlled studies suggest placebo effects contribute to acute pain relief following mindfulness interventions. However, the specific effects of mindfulness processes and their interaction with placebo effects remain unclear. This study aimed to characterize the role of mindfulness and placebo processes underlying mindfulness-based pain attenuation. Both treatment (focused-attention mindfulness vs sham) and instruction ("told mindfulness" vs "told sham") were manipulated in a balanced placebo design. Changes in acute heat pain were evaluated in 153 healthy adults randomized to receive 6 x 20 minutes of one of the four treatment by instruction interventions or no treatment. Participants receiving any intervention demonstrated improved pain outcomes (unpleasantness, intensity and tolerance) relative to no treatment. The instruction manipulation increased expectation for pain relief in those told mindfulness relative to told sham, but there were no main effects or interactions of treatment or instruction on pain outcomes. However, irrespective of actual intervention received, the belief of receiving mindfulness predicted increased pain threshold and tolerance, with expectancy fully mediating the effect on pain tolerance. These findings suggest a lack of specific effects of mindfulness and instruction on acute pain. Nonetheless, participants' expectancies and beliefs about the treatment they received did predict pain relief. Together with the overall improvement following any intervention, these findings suggest that expectancy and belief may play a stronger role in attenuating acute pain in novices following brief mindfulness interventions than the actual mindfulness-specific processes or instructions delivered.

Effect of Pain Reprocessing Therapy vs Placebo and Usual Care for Patients With Chronic Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Chronic back pain (CBP) is a leading cause of disability, and treatment is often ineffective. Approximately 85% of cases are primary CBP, for which peripheral etiology cannot be identified, and maintenance factors include fear, avoidance, and beliefs that pain indicates injury.

OBJECTIVE

To test whether a psychological treatment (pain reprocessing therapy [PRT]) aiming to shift patients' beliefs about the causes and threat value of pain provides substantial and durable pain relief from primary CBP and to investigate treatment mechanisms.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial with longitudinal functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and 1-year follow-up assessment was conducted in a university research setting from November 2017 to August 2018, with 1-year follow-up completed by November 2019. Clinical and fMRI data were analyzed from January 2019 to August 2020. The study compared PRT with an open-label placebo treatment and with usual care in a community sample.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants randomized to PRT participated in 1 telehealth session with a physician and 8 psychological treatment sessions over 4 weeks. Treatment aimed to help patients reconceptualize their pain as due to nondangerous brain activity rather than peripheral tissue injury, using a combination of cognitive, somatic, and exposure-based techniques. Participants randomized to placebo received an open-label subcutaneous saline injection in the back; participants randomized to usual care continued their routine, ongoing care.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

One-week mean back pain intensity score (0 to 10) at posttreatment, pain beliefs, and fMRI measures of evoked pain and resting connectivity.

RESULTS

At baseline, 151 adults (54% female; mean [SD] age, 41.1 [15.6] years) reported mean (SD) pain of low to moderate severity (mean [SD] pain intensity, 4.10 [1.26] of 10; mean [SD] disability, 23.34 [10.12] of 100) and mean (SD) pain duration of 10.0 (8.9) years. Large group differences in pain were observed at posttreatment, with a mean (SD) pain score of 1.18 (1.24) in the PRT group, 2.84 (1.64) in the placebo group, and 3.13 (1.45) in the usual care group. Hedges g was -1.14 for PRT vs placebo and -1.74 for PRT vs usual care (P < .001). Of 151 total participants, 33 of 50 participants (66%) randomized to PRT were pain-free or nearly pain-free at posttreatment (reporting a pain intensity score of 0 or 1 of 10), compared with 10 of 51 participants (20%) randomized to placebo and 5 of 50 participants (10%) randomized to usual care. Treatment effects were maintained at 1-year follow-up, with a mean (SD) pain score of 1.51 (1.59) in the PRT group, 2.79 (1.78) in the placebo group, and 3.00 (1.77) in the usual care group. Hedges g was -0.70 for PRT vs placebo (P = .001) and -1.05 for PRT vs usual care (P < .001) at 1-year follow-up. Longitudinal fMRI showed (1) reduced responses to evoked back pain in the anterior midcingulate and the anterior prefrontal cortex for PRT vs placebo; (2) reduced responses in the anterior insula for PRT vs usual care; (3) increased resting connectivity from the anterior prefrontal cortex and the anterior insula to the primary somatosensory cortex for PRT vs both control groups; and (4) increased connectivity from the anterior midcingulate to the precuneus for PRT vs usual care.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Psychological treatment centered on changing patients' beliefs about the causes and threat value of pain may provide substantial and durable pain relief for people with CBP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03294148.

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.

How Psychedelic-Assisted Treatment Works in the Bayesian Brain

Psychedelics are experiencing a renaissance in clinical research. In recent years, an increasing number of studies on psychedelic-assisted treatment have been conducted. So far, the results are promising, suggesting that this new (or rather, rediscovered) form of therapy has great potential. One particular reason for that appears to be the synergistic combination of the pharmacological and psychotherapeutic interventions in psychedelic-assisted treatment. But how exactly do these two interventions complement each other? This paper provides the first account of the interaction between pharmacological and psychological effects in psychedelic-assisted treatment. Building on the relaxed beliefs under psychedelics (REBUS) hypothesis of Carhart-Harris and Friston and the contextual model of Wampold, it argues that psychedelics amplify the common factors and thereby the remedial effects of psychotherapy. More precisely, psychedelics are assumed to attenuate the precision of high-level predictions, making them more revisable by bottom-up input. Psychotherapy constitutes an important source of such input. At best, it signalizes a safe and supportive environment (cf. setting) and induces remedial expectations (cf. set). During treatment, these signals should become incorporated when high-level predictions are revised: a process that is hypothesized to occur as a matter of course in psychotherapy but to get reinforced and accelerated under psychedelics. Ultimately, these revisions should lead to a relief of symptoms.

Associations Between Interindividual Differences, Expectations and Placebo and Nocebo Effects in Itch

Introduction: Placebo and nocebo effects are positive and negative health outcomes that can be elicited by the psychosocial context. They can be mediated by expectations, and may emerge in somatic symptoms even when people are aware of these effects. Interindividual differences (e.g., in personality, affective states) could impact placebo and nocebo responding, but findings are inconsistent. Methods: The current work examined expectation as a mediator of the association between verbal placebo and nocebo suggestions (VSs) and histamine-induced itch across three experimental studies. Moreover, we examined whether interindividual differences (e.g., in optimism, neuroticism, behavioral activation system (BAS), body ignorance) modulated: (1) the direct association between VSs and itch (direct moderation), and (2) the indirect, expectation-mediated association between VSs and itch (moderated mediation). Positive VSs were compared to neutral instructions (Study 1; n = 92) or negative VSs (Studies 2+3; n = 203) in an open-label (i.e., explaining placebo and nocebo effects) or closed-label (concealed) context using PROCESS. First, mediation of VSs effects on itch by expectations was tested. Next, moderation by individual traits was explored using conditional process analyses. Results: The effects of VSs on itch were significantly mediated by expectation in Study 1 and in the open-label (but not closed-label) contexts of Studies 2 and 3. Ignorance of bodily signals marginally moderated the direct effects of VSs on itch when closed-label suggestions were given: at low levels of body ignorance, effects of positive and negative VSs were stronger. Moreover, moderated mediation was observed in the open-label groups of Studies 2 and 3: The expectation-mediated effects of VSs on itch were stronger when BAS drive was lower. Conclusion: Overall, the effects of VSs on itch were mediated by expectations in the open-label, but not the closed-label context. Moreover, the current work suggests that placebo and nocebo effects may be moderated by ignorance of bodily signals and the BAS. There was limited evidence that other interindividual differences modulated placebo and nocebo responding in itch.

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.

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).

Real Bodies Not Required? Placebo Analgesia and Pain Perception in Immersive Virtual and Augmented Reality

Pain represents an embodied experience, wherein inferences are not only drawn from external sensory inputs, but also from bodily states. Previous research has demonstrated that a placebo administered to an embodied rubber hand can effectively induce analgesia, providing first evidence that placebos can work even when applied to temporarily embodied, artificial body parts. Using a heat pain paradigm, the present study investigates placebo analgesia and pain perception during virtual embodiment. We examined whether a virtual placebo (a sham heat protective glove) can successfully induce analgesia, even when administered to a virtual body. The analgesic efficacy of the virtual placebo to the real hand (augmented reality setting) or virtual hand (virtual reality setting) was compared to a physical placebo administered to the own, physical body (physical reality setting). Furthermore, pain perception and subjective embodiment were compared between settings. In this mixed design experiment, healthy participants (n=48) were assigned to either an analgesia-expectation or control-expectation group, where subjective and objective pain was measured at pre- and post-intervention time points. Results demonstrated that pre-intervention pain intensity was lower in the virtual reality setting, and that participants in the analgesia-expectation condition, after the intervention, exhibited significantly higher pain thresholds, and lower pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings than control-expectation participants, independent of the setting. Our findings show that a virtual placebo can elicit placebo analgesia comparable to that of a physical placebo, and that administration of a placebo does not necessitate physical bodily interaction to produce analgesic responses.

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.

Thirty Years of Neuroscientific Investigation of Placebo and Nocebo: The Interesting, the Good, and the Bad

Over the past 30 years there has been a surge of research on the placebo effect using a neuroscientific approach. The interesting aspects of this effort are related to the identification of several biological mechanisms of both the placebo and nocebo effects, the latter of which is defined as a negative placebo effect. Some important translational implications have emerged both in the setting of clinical trials and in routine medical practice. One of the principal contributions of neuroscience has been to draw the attention of the scientific and medical communities to the important role of psychobiological factors in therapeutic outcomes, be they drug related or not. Indeed, many biological mechanisms triggered by placebos and nocebos resemble those modulated by drugs, suggesting a possible interaction between psychological factors and drug action. Unfortunately, this new knowledge regarding placebos has the potential of being dangerously exploited by pseudoscience. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Volume 62 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Lay perspectives of the open-label placebo rationale: a qualitative study of participants in an experimental trial

OBJECTIVES

To analyse participants' concepts about the open-label placebo (OLP) effect; to explore their views about the discussion points that are applied in conventional OLP trials and to examine their experiences of taking part in an OLP trial.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using thematic analysis of semistructured interviews that were nested within a randomised controlled trial investigating experimental OLP analgesia (registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02578420).

PARTICIPANTS

30 healthy adults who took part in the randomised controlled trial.

RESULTS

Participants mostly conceptualised placebo as something that is inert and requires deception in order to be effective. Interviewees used a broad definition of placebos, going beyond a conventional notion of sugar pills. In contrast to the conventional OLP rationale, participants seldom emphasised classical conditioning as a mechanism of placebo effects, stressing a variety of other well-established components through which placebos might be therapeutic, whereas the conventional OLP disclosures state that 'a positive attitude helps but is not necessary', participants in our study applied other attitudes, such as 'it's worth a try'. When asked about their experiences during the trial, the majority emphasised that the concept of OLP was completely novel to them. Participants were rather sceptical about the efficacy of the intervention.

CONCLUSION

Integrating lay perspectives into the scientific rationale of OLP treatments might enhance the plausibility and credibility of the rationale in ethical treatments.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02578420.

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.

Placebo From an Enactive Perspective

Due to their complexity and variability, placebo effects remain controversial. We suggest this is also due to a set of problematic assumptions (dualism, reductionism, individualism, passivity). We critically assess current explanations and empirical evidence and propose an alternative theoretical framework-the enactive approach to life and mind-based on recent developments in embodied cognitive science. We review core enactive concepts such as autonomy, agency, and sense-making. Following these ideas, we propose a move from binary distinctions (e.g., conscious vs. non-conscious) to the more workable categories of reflective and pre-reflective activity. We introduce an ontology of individuation, following the work of Gilbert Simondon, that allow us to see placebo interventions not as originating causal chains, but as modulators and triggers in the regulation of tensions between ongoing embodied and interpersonal processes. We describe these interrelated processes involving looping effects through three intertwined dimensions of embodiment: organic, sensorimotor, and intersubjective. Finally, we defend the need to investigate therapeutic interactions in terms of participatory sense-making, going beyond the identification of individual social traits (e.g., empathy, trust) that contribute to placebo effects. We discuss resonances and differences between the enactive proposal, popular explanations such as expectations and conditioning, and other approaches based on meaning responses and phenomenological/ecological ideas.

Does Health Literacy Make a Difference? Comparing the Effect of Conventional Medicine Versus Homeopathic Prescribing on Treatment Credibility and Expectancy

Objective

While homeopathic remedies are often used to treat non-specific complaints such as headaches, empirical evidence suggests their treatment effect is due to the placebo effect. Low health literacy seems to be connected to higher use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The aim of this study was to examine what people with occasional headaches expect from conventional medicine or homeopathic remedies and if health literacy interacts with this expectation.

Methods

In this experimental study, n = 582 participants with occasional headaches were randomized to read one of two vignettes, which described the prescription of either conventional medicine or a homeopathic remedy. Subsequently, the participants were asked to rate treatment credibility and expectancy with regard to their assigned vignette. Health literacy was assessed as a potential moderator.

Results

Participants in the conventional medicine group rated treatment credibility and expectancy higher than in the homeopathic remedy group. Moderation analysis revealed that when being offered conventional medicine, participant reports of treatment credibility and expectancy decreased with lower health literacy, while these outcomes increased with lower health literacy for homeopathic remedies.

Discussion

People with occasional headaches estimate the effectiveness of conventional medication properly. However, health care professionals should pay special attention to patients with low health literacy, as they might need more time and information to give their informed consent.

Treating Pain With Open-Label Placebos: A Qualitative Study With Post-Surgical Pain Patients

Prior research has shown that Open Label Placebos (OLPs; that is, placebos described honestly as inactive pills) are effective for a variety of clinical conditions, including pain. However, little is known about patient attitudes towards OLPs. We conducted qualitative interviews with n = 11 patients (73% female) who recently had hand or wrist surgery and took ≥ 1 opioid pill. Interview topics included: pain management, the placebo effect, and in particular, attitudes towards OLPs. Interviews were analyzed inductively and content-coded. Five themes were identified: 1) Role of the mind in pain and illness, 2) Shortcomings of opioids are the strengths of OLPs, 3) Perceptions of OLP effectiveness, 4) Relational aspects of OLP administration, and 5) Practical considerations for OLP implementation. Most patients agreed that, because of their transparency, OLPs are ethical. Participants indicated some degree of reluctance about using OLPs, but the majority said they would take OLPs if prescribed by a doctor. Patients noted that the primary disadvantage of opioids is their potency, which can lead to addiction or side-effects; by contrast, the primary advantage of placebos is their inertness. Results suggest that OLPs appear to be well received as a postoperative pain treatment among the patients in this study. PERSPECTIVE: This qualitative study examines how hand surgery patients view OLPs, which are placebos described honestly as inactive pills. OLPs were generally well received by patients as a treatment for pain after surgery and could be considered as an adjunctive treatment to potentially reduce reliance on prescription opioids.

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).

Use of Nonmedicated Control Substances in Randomized Clinical Trials of Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-analysis

Importance

The effect of nonmedicated control substances in chronic rhinosinusitis remains unclear.

Objective

To assess the association of nonmedicated control substances in randomized clinical trials with disease outcomes in patients diagnosed with chronic rhinosinusitis.

Data Sources and Study Selection

In this single-arm systematic review and meta-analysis, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized clinical trials with a preintervention and postintervention design for chronic rhinosinusitis that were published between 1946 and January 23, 2019.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Paired reviewers independently extracted data. The analyses used random-effects models and the Cochrane risk of bias assessment to rate the quality of the evidence.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were the association of nonmedicated control substances with 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) scores or nasal symptom scores when SNOT-22 was not available.

Results

A total of 2305 abstracts were identified and screened, 725 articles were reviewed in full text, and 38 articles met the study criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Among the 38 included studies, a total of 2258 adults (mean age range, 27-53 years; 20.0%-72.5% women) were randomized to receive nonmedicated control substances or sham interventions. Topical nonmedicated control substances were associated with significant reduction in SNOT-22 scores (mean difference [MD], -8.81; 95% CI, -12.60 to -5.03). A subgroup analysis of topical therapies, limited to saline irrigation and nasal spray diluents, found that topical diluents were associated with a greater reduction in SNOT-22 scores (MD, -11.45; 95% CI, -13.50 to -9.41) compared with saline irrigation (MD, -13.60; 95% CI, -19.95 to -7.25). Nonmedicated control substances were associated with a significant reduction in nasal obstruction scores (standardized MD [SMD], -0.42; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.03). No significant change was found in rhinorrhea scores (SMD, -0.34; 95% CI, -1.37 to 0.69), postnasal drip scores (SMD, -0.96; 95% CI, -2.18 to 0.25), facial pain scores (SMD, -0.57; 95% CI, -1.68 to 0.55), or loss of smell scores (SMD, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.68 to 0.32).

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of nonmedicated control substances in randomized clinical trials of chronic rhinosinusitis outcomes suggests that the use of nonmedicated control substances is associated with limited improvements in SNOT-22 and nasal obstruction scores. These findings highlight potential areas of future research directions and the importance of randomized clinical trials to accurately estimate treatment effect.

A comparison of open-label and deceptive placebo analgesia in a healthy sample

OBJECTIVES

A small number of studies have supported the efficacy of open-label placebos (OLPs) in reducing pain. However, research comparing the effectiveness of OLPs with deceptive placebos (DPs) is limited, and the relative impact on pain tolerance versus intensity are not yet understood. This study therefore, examined the effectiveness of a nasal placebo administered openly and deceptively on pain intensity and tolerance during a cold pressor test (CPT).

METHOD

75 healthy participants were allocated to one of three groups; OLP (n = 25), DP (n = 26) and no-treatment (NT; n = 24). A pre-test post-test design was used, with all participants completing a baseline and post-treatment CPT, following placebo administration in the treatment groups.

RESULTS

A one-way ANCOVA revealed significant differences between groups for pain intensity, with planned contrasts revealing that this effect was driven by an increase in pain intensity scores for the NT group within the post treatment CPT, which was not evident in the OLP and DP groups. There were no significant differences between groups for changes in pain tolerance.

CONCLUSION

The increase in pain intensity reported within the post-treatment CPT in the NT group was not apparent in either the OLP or DP groups, with no significant differences between OLP and DP effectiveness. These findings suggest that deception may not be necessary for effective placebo treatment and have implications for the management of pain.

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.

Open-label placebos for menopausal hot flushes: a randomized controlled trial

This study investigated the efficacy of an open-label placebo (OLP) treatment for menopausal hot flushes. Women with at least five moderate or severe hot flushes per day were allocated to receive four weeks of OLP for twice a day or no-treatment. Intention-to-treat analyses included n = 100 women. In comparison to no-treatment, OLP reduced the log-transformed hot flush composite score (frequency × intensity) (mean difference in change: − 0.32, 95% CI [− 0.43; − 0.21], p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.86), hot flush frequency (− 1.12 [− 1.81; − 0.43], p = 0.02, Cohen’s d = 0.51), and improved overall menopause-related quality of life (− 2.53 [− 4.17; − 0.89], p = 0.02, Cohen’s d = 0.49). Twelve (24%) (vs. three [6%]) patients had 50% lesser hot flushes. Problem rating of hot flushes and subdomains of quality of life did not improve. After four weeks, the OLP group was further divided via randomization to continue or discontinue the treatment. Benefits were maintained at week 8 (log-transformed score: − 0.04 [− 0.06; 0.14], p = 0.45). There was no difference between taking placebos for 8 or 4 weeks (log-transformed score: 0.04 [− 0.17; 0.25], p = 0.73). Results indicate that open-label placebos may be an effective, safe alternative for menopausal hot flushes.

Open-Label Placebo Treatment: Outcome Expectations and General Acceptance in the Lay Population

Background

Most physicians sometimes apply therapies without specific active ingredients. Although patients seem to judge such placebo treatments as acceptable under certain circumstances, deception is still an ethical problem. Open-label placebos (OLPs) might be a promising approach to solve this dilemma. This study compared general acceptance and outcome expectations of OLPs and deceptive placebos (DPs).

Methods

In an experimental online study, 814 participants read a case vignette of a person with insomnia receiving a pill. The participants were then randomly allocated into two groups, where the second part of the vignette described the pill as either a deceptive placebo (DP group) or as an open-label placebo (OLP group). The Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ) assessed outcome expectations after the first (pre-assessment) and the second (post-assessment) parts of the vignette. Treatment acceptance was measured at post-assessment. Data from 798 participants were analyzed by a mixed multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), t-tests, and post-hoc mediation analyses.

Results

The MANOVA revealed a significant group main effect and a significant time × group interaction effect. At post-assessment, outcome expectations were higher in the DP group than in the OLP group. Acceptance of the placebo treatment was also higher in the DP group than in the OLP group. Mediation analyses confirmed that higher acceptance in the DP group was mediated by higher expectations.

Conclusions

When laypersons read about placebo treatment, their outcome expectations toward DPs were higher than toward OLPs. Surprisingly, the application of DPs was rated as more acceptable than OLPs. This result might be explained by indirect effects of treatment expectations.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12529-020-09933-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Nocebo effects by providing informed consent in shared decision making? Not necessarily: a randomized pilot-trial using an open-label placebo approach

Background

Thorough information of the patient is an integral part of the process of shared decision making. We aimed to investigate if detailed information about medication may induce nocebo (or placebo) effects.

Methods

We conducted a randomized, single-blind, pilot-study including n = 51 psychiatric in-patients aged between 18 and 80 years with a depressive disorder and accompanying sleeping disorders. In the intervention group we provided thorough information about adverse effects, while the control group received only a simple consent procedure. In both groups, patients received an open-label placebo pill instead of their sleeping medication.

Results

No statistically significant differences between the intervention group and the control group were found regarding the main outcome parameter (a visual analogue scale indicating impairment by the new pill).

Conclusion

In this study, we were not able detect an effect of informed consent vs. simple consent on the emergence of placebo or nocebo effects. This finding is contrary to most assumptions and publications about this topic.

Trial registration

Trial registration number: DRKS00017653, registered August 30th 2018. Retrosprectively registered.

Open-label placebo clinical trials: is it the rationale, the interaction or the pill?

National surveys of primary care physicians demonstrate that placebo use is prevalent. Against their widespread use, until recently, it was assumed among researchers that placebos must be deceptively prescribed for beneficial effects to be elicited. However, a new programme of research in placebo studies indicates that it may be possible to harness placebo effects in clinical practice via ethical, non-deceptively prescribed 'open label placebos' ('OLPs'). To date, there have been 14 small scale clinical and experimental trials into OLPs. Results suggest therapeutic potential of these treatments for a range of conditions and symptoms. In this evidence-based Analysis we identify conceptual issues that, if not given due consideration, risk undermining research methodologies in OLP trials. Counterintuitively, owing to the nuances posed by placebo terminology, and the difficulties of designing placebos controls in OLP trials, we suggest that experimentalists reflect more deeply when formulating adequate comparison groups. Further research is needed to disentangle which specific components of OLPs are effective, such as: the rationale provided to participants; the quality of provider interaction; and/or the action of taking the pills. We conclude with recommendations for how researchers might take up the significant challenge of devising optimal placebo controls for OLP clinical trials. Although these issues are intricate, they are not merely academic: without due diligence to conceptual, and as a consequence, methodological considerations, OLP effect sizes may be over- or underestimated. We conclude that there may yet be potential to use OLPs in medical practice but clinical translation depends on rigorously controlled research.

A systematic review of the evidence base for the Lightning Process

BACKGROUND

The Lightning Process (LP), a mind-body training programme, has been applied to a range of health problems and disorders. Studies and surveys report a range of outcomes creating a lack of clarity about the efficacy of the intervention.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review evaluates the methodological quality of existing studies on the LP and collates and reviews its reported efficacy.

DATA SOURCES

Five databases, PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, ERIC (to September 2018), and Google and Google Scholar were searched for relevant studies.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies of the LP in clinical populations published in peer-reviewed journals or in grey literature were selected. Reviews, editorial articles and studies/surveys with un-reported methodology were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

Searches returned 568 records, 21 were retrieved in full text of which 14 fulfilled the inclusion criteria (ten quantitative studies/surveys and four qualitative studies).

DATA SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS

The review identified variance in the quality of studies across time; earlier studies demonstrated a lack of control groups, a lack of clarity of aspects of the methodology and potential sampling bias. Although it found a variance in reported patient outcomes, the review also identified an emerging body of evidence supporting the efficacy of the LP for many participants with fatigue, physical function, pain, anxiety and depression. It concludes that there is a need for more randomised controlled trials to evaluate if these positive outcomes can be replicated and generalised to larger populations.

More than consent for ethical open-label placebo research

Recent studies have explored the effectiveness of open-label placebos (OLPs) for a variety of conditions, including chronic pain, cancer-related fatigue and irritable bowel syndrome. OLPs are thought to sidestep traditional ethical worries about placebos because they do not involve deception: with an OLP, patients or subjects are told outright that they are not given an active substance. As deception is framed as the primary hurdle to ethical placebo use, the door is ostensibly opened to ethical studies of OLPs. In this article, I suggest that even though OLPs seemingly do not involve deception, there are other ethical considerations in their clinical investigation and subsequent use. Research ethics often focusses on informed consent-of which, deception and honesty are a piece-as a means to justify research practices with human subjects. Yet, it is but one of the ethical considerations that should be taken into account. With research into placebo effects in particular, I argue that the history of clinical placebo use grounds special considerations for OLP research that go beyond respect for the autonomy of individual patients through informed consent and encompass structural concerns about the type of patient for whom a placebo has historically been thought appropriate.

Placebo prevents rumination: An experimental study

BACKGROUND

Rumination is a risk factor for the development and maintenance of depressive symptoms and represents an important target for the treatment of depression. In the present study, we aimed to examine whether rumination can be reduced when participants are led to believe that they would receive medication that would prevent them from ruminating.

METHODS

In healthy participants (N= 91), an initial dysphoric state was induced via mood-suggestive music and autobiographic recall. Subsequently, participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: an experimental group that received a deceptive active placebo via intranasal application accompanied by expectancy-enhancing instructions vs. a no-treatment control group. Then, rumination was induced via a rumination-activating task. The primary outcome was current rumination; experienced sadness was considered a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Consistent with the hypothesis, participants receiving the placebo reported a significantly lower increase in current rumination (d= 0.57) and a higher decrease in sadness (d= 0.69) after the experimental induction than the control group.

LIMITATIONS

The external validity of this study might be limited due to the highly educated student sample.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that rumination processes as well as experienced sadness can be positively influenced by placebo treatment. To evaluate its clinical potential, placebo-induced expectancy effects in rumination research should be further examined, particularly with clinically depressed patients. Also, the results imply that clinicians might consider the effects of expectations on patients' rumination tendencies, for example by explicitly addressing patients' expectations about rumination, mood, and the treatment in general.

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.

Sharing clinical notes, and placebo and nocebo effects: Can documentation affect patient health?

This paper connects findings from the field of placebo studies with research into patients' interactions with their clinician's visit notes, housed in their electronic health records. We propose specific hypotheses about how features of clinicians' written notes might trigger mechanisms of placebo and nocebo effects to elicit positive or adverse health effects among patients. Bridging placebo studies with (a) survey data assaying patient and clinician experiences with portals and (b) randomized controlled trials provides preliminary support for our hypotheses. We conclude with actionable proposals for testing our understanding of the health effects of access to visit notes.

Patient-appraised beneficial moments during inpatient psychiatric treatment

BACKGROUND

Psychiatric inpatients receive a multidisciplinary treatment approach, covering psychiatry, nursing, occupational therapy, and psychology. Research findings reveal that the effectiveness of any treatment is associated with three types of factors: specific (e.g., treatment techniques), common (e.g., clinician-patient relationship, patients' expectations) and extra-therapeutic. However, there is little published research on the factors and events which inpatients themselves consider to be beneficial ('beneficial moments').

METHODS

Inpatients (N = 107) of a psychiatric clinic completed a questionnaire to elicit their appraisal of beneficial moments. A qualitative content analysis was applied. The coding procedure was conducted independently by two authors.

RESULTS

Self-appraised beneficial moments were found in five areas: therapy-specific components (number of quotations, N = 204), positive relationships (N = 140), clinical setting and environment (N = 52), inpatients' new insights (N = 36), and factors unrelated to either therapy or the clinic (N = 30). In total, 44% of the quotations were related to specific factors, 49% to common factors, and 7% to extra-therapeutic factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatients judge both specific and common factors as crucial for the therapeutic benefit they gain during their stay at the clinic. Our results differ from meta-analytical findings, where the impact of specific factors on symptom improvement has shown to be much smaller (i.e., 17%) than appraised by patients in our study (i.e., 44%). Our study underlines the importance of a patient-centred care approach as well as shared decision making and patient-clinician communication. For clinical practice, knowledge of inpatients' perspectives on beneficial moments is crucial in order to reinforce precisely these therapeutic components.

Placebos without deception reduce self-report and neural measures of emotional distress

Several recent studies suggest that placebos administered without deception (i.e., non-deceptive placebos) can help people manage a variety of highly distressing clinical disorders and nonclinical impairments. However, whether non-deceptive placebos represent genuine psychobiological effects is unknown. Here we address this issue by demonstrating across two experiments that during a highly arousing negative picture viewing task, non-deceptive placebos reduce both a self-report and neural measure of emotional distress, the late positive potential. These results show that non-deceptive placebo effects are not merely a product of response bias. Additionally, they provide insight into the neural time course of non-deceptive placebo effects on emotional distress and the psychological mechanisms that explain how they function.

There is controversy about whether placebos without deception cause real psychobiological benefits. Here, the authors show that the positive effects of placebos without deception are more than response bias by providing evidence they can reduce self-report and neural measures of emotional distress.

[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.

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

Open-label placebo treatment of women with premenstrual syndrome: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Recent evidence suggests that for certain clinical conditions, placebos can improve clinical outcomes even without deception. These so-called open-label placebos (OLPs) bear the advantage of a significant lower risk of adverse events and comply with ethical principles. Although premenstrual syndrome (PMS) seems to be considerably susceptible to placebo effects, no study has examined open-OLP responses on PMS.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

To test the efficacy of OLPs in women suffering from PMS, a clinical randomised controlled trial including two OLP study groups (with and without treatment rationale) was designed to investigate on the effect on PMS. PMS symptoms are monitored on a daily basis via a symptom diary, adverse events are monitored intermittently. The study started in spring 2018 and patients will be included until a maximum of 150 participants are randomised. Besides the primary outcome PMS symptom intensity and interference, an array of further variables is assessed. Multilevel modelling will be used for data analyses.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee Northwest and Central Switzerland. Results of the main analysis and of secondary analyses will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: (1) ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03547661); (2) Swiss national registration (SNCTP000002809).

Can an Open-Label Placebo Be as Effective as a Deceptive Placebo? Methodological Considerations of a Study Protocol

Background: Placebo has been studied for many years and is ever-present in healthcare. In clinical practice, its use is limited by ethical issues raised by the deception entailed by its administration. Objective: To investigate whether, when given detailed information about pain and underlying placebo mechanisms, subjects will have a response similar to that of those subjected to a procedure in which they receive a conventional placebo treatment. Methods: The study is designed as a non-inferiority randomized, parallel with a nested crossover trial. In addition, 126 subjects without any known pathology will be included. They will be randomized into two groups. Each subject will undergo three Cold Pressor Tests (CPT): calibration, condition of interest (deceptive placebo or educated placebo), and control. Our main judgment criterion will be the comparison in pain intensity experienced on the visual analog scale between the two CPTs with placebo conditions. Results: This study will allow us to rule on the non-inferiority of an "educated" placebo compared to a deceptive placebo in the context of an acute painful stimulation. It is another step towards the understanding of open-label placebo and its use in clinical practice. Conclusions: This study has been approved by the ethics committee in France (2017-A01643-50) and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03934138).

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.

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.

[Use of placebo in French hospitals: data from polyvalent medicine units]

A placebo drug is defined as a treatment without any specific pharmacological efficacy, that works when the patient thinks to receive an active treatment, through a psychological and physiological mechanism. This study aimed to evaluate the use of placebo in French hospitals, in Polyvalent Medicine units. A questionnaire comprising 15 items was sent to 372 units. The analysis of 153 responses was conducted from dynamic crosstabs in Excel and using the R software available online. The survey confirmed that the use of placebos in hospital is frequent, with nearly 2/3 of professionals answering the questionnaire declared to use it. The oral capsule is the most commonly used form. Placebo is mainly administered at night, in case of pain, insomnia or anxiety, to so-called "difficult" patients. Placebo is not always given after medical prescription. In most cases, patients are not informed that they receive a placebo. The majority of professionals believed in the placebo effect but considered to be insufficiently informed and trained in the use of placebo in current practice. Although the placebo effect is now demonstrated, ethical and legal considerations recommend placebo treatment only on medical prescription, with the prior information of the patient. The placebo could be used as complementary therapy to conventional treatment in the cases of this therapeutic effectiveness has been demonstrated. Professionals should be trained in the use of placebo in order to avoid nocebo effect and potentiate beneficial effects of placebo.

Non-concealed placebo treatment for menopausal hot flushes: Study protocol of a randomized-controlled trial

Background

Beneficial effects of placebos are high in double-blind hot flush trials. Studies in various conditions suggest that honestly prescribed placebos may elicit symptom improvement.

Objective

To determine whether open label placebo (OLP) treatment is efficacious in alleviating hot flushes among peri- and postmenopausal women.

Methods/design

In this assessor-blinded, randomized-controlled trial, n = 100 women experiencing five or more daily hot flushes of at least moderate severity and bothersomeness are assigned 1:1 to a 4-week OLP treatment or no treatment. To explore the duration and maintenance of placebo effects, the OLP group is randomized a second time to either discontinue or continue the OLP treatment for another 4 weeks. All participants receive a briefing about placebo effects and study visits at baseline, post-treatment (4 weeks), and follow-up (8 weeks, OLP group only). Qualitative interviews about subjective experiences with the OLP treatment are conducted.

Primary outcomes are differences between the OLP and the no-treatment group in the hot flush composite score (frequency × severity), and bothersomeness of hot flushes as assessed with the Hot Flush Rating Scale at post-treatment. Secondary outcomes include hot flush frequency, health-related quality of life, global improvement, and the number of responders at post-treatment. Data are analyzed by fitting (generalized) linear mixed models. An exploratory analysis of maintenance and duration is performed including follow-up data.

Discussion

This trial will contribute to the evaluation of OLP treatments in clinical practice and further our understanding about the magnitude of placebo effects in hot flush treatments.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03838523. Retrospectively registered on February 12th, 2019. The first patient was enrolled on October 10th, 2018.

Endogenous cortisol and conditioned placebo effects on pain - A randomized trial

Placebo effects can be induced by learning and conditioning processes, which in turn are influenced and modulated by glucocorticoids. Accordingly, previous research has shown that intervention-related associative learning can be modulated through exogenous as well as endogenous glucocorticoids. Thus, the aim of this study was to elucidate whether placebo effects induced by conditioning is modulated by daily fluctuations of endogenous cortisol levels in healthy male and female subjects. Overall 77 participants underwent a two-phased placebo conditioning paradigm for pain analgesia. Subjects were randomized in two groups, which underwent placebo preconditioning either in the morning (08:00-10:00, i.e. with high endogenous cortisol levels) or in the afternoon (16:00-18:00, i.e. with low endogenous cortisol levels). Placebo effects were assessed two days later at noontime (12:00-13:00), with possible differences between groups as an indicator of glucocorticoid modulation on the placebo learning. Results indicated a significant conditioned placebo-induced analgesia, resulting in a placebo effect of small to medium size. Cortisol levels on conditioning day significantly differed between groups and cortisol levels were similar during assessment of placebo effects. Groups did not differ in their mean reduction in pain sensation, thus the placebo effect was not affected by differences in cortisol levels during the conditioning of placebo effects. The present study does not indicate a moderation of placebo conditioning by endogenous glucocorticoid levels.

When Your Doctor "Gets It" and "Gets You": The Critical Role of Competence and Warmth in the Patient-Provider Interaction

Background: Research demonstrates that the placebo effect can influence the effectiveness of medical treatments and accounts for a significant proportion of healing in many conditions. However, providers may differ in the degree to which they consciously or unconsciously leverage the forces that produce placebo effects in clinical practice. Some studies suggest that the manner in which providers interact with patients shapes the magnitude of placebo effects, but this research has yet to distill the specific dimensions of patient-provider interactions that are most likely to influence placebo response and the mechanisms through which aspects of patient-provider interactions impact placebo response. Methods: We offer a simplifying and unifying framework in which interactions that boost placebo response can be dissected into two key dimensions: patients' perceptions of competence, or whether a doctor "gets it" (i.e., displays of efficiency, knowledge, and skill), and patients' perceptions of warmth, or whether a doctor "gets me" (i.e., displays of personal engagement, connection, and care for the patient). Results: First, we discuss how this framework builds on past research in psychology on social perception of competence and warmth and in medical literature on models of effective medical care, patient satisfaction, and patient-provider interactions. Then we consider possible mechanisms through which competence and warmth may affect the placebo response in healthcare. Finally, we share original data from patients and providers highlighting how this framework applies to healthcare. Both patient and provider data illustrate actionable ways providers can demonstrate competence and warmth to patients. Discussion: We conclude with recommendations for how researchers and practitioners alike can more systematically consider the role of provider competence and warmth in patient-provider interactions to deepen our understanding of placebo effects and, ultimately, enable providers to boost placebo effects alongside active medications (i.e., with known medical ingredients) and treatment in clinical care.

The placebo and its effects: A psychoneuroendocrinological perspective

Placebos are usually employed deceptively in clinical trials in order to control for non-specific effects. However, since placebos themselves have been found to cause clinically relevant changes and in some cases are indistinguishable from the verum they are tested against, this theoretically inert, but practically effective intervention has become a scientific discipline in its own right. In this review, it is argued that placebos are generic and genuine biopsychosocial interventions and as such are highly interesting candidates for a psychoneuroendocrinological perspective. Yet, despite a considerable conceptual proximity between explanatory models of placebos and their effects with psychoneuroendocrine models and findings, placebos have thus far not been subject to systematic psychoneuroendocrine examination. Consequently, it would be highly interesting and informative to make placebos the target of psychoneuroendocrine scrutiny.

Reinterpreting homoeopathy in the light of placebo effects to manage patients who seek homoeopathic care: A systematic review

Homoeopathy is widespread, and users claim to benefit from it. However, clear evidence of its efficacy over placebo is not available to date. As a consequence, a social separation between homoeopathy users and mainstream medicine exists, exposing these patients to many risks. Our primary objective is to assess homoeopathy efficacy by systematically reviewing existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to systematically review trials on open-label placebo (OLP) treatments. A secondary objective is to understand if homoeopathy as a whole may be considered as a placebo treatment. PubMed/Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on homoeopathy efficacy, and 61 studies were included. Same databases plus Journal of Interdisciplinary Placebo Studies (JIPS) were also systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on OLP treatments, and 10 studies were included. Databases were searched up to 24 February 2018. Two authors independently screened all retrieved articles and selected studies eligible for inclusion. The quality of reviews of included studies was evaluated with a dedicated NIH tool in the first review, whereas the risk of bias of trials of included studies was assessed with the specific Cochrane tool in the second review. Qualitative syntheses show that homoeopathy efficacy can be considered comparable to placebo, and that OLP treatments may be effective in some health conditions. Placebo effects like placebo itself, treatment context, physician-patient relationship, and other nonspecific factors can define the idea of placebo treatments, which may be effective in some conditions. If homoeopathy efficacy is comparable to placebo, and if placebo treatments can be effective in some conditions, then homoeopathy as a whole may be considered as a placebo treatment. Reinterpreting homoeopathy as a placebo treatment would define limits and possibilities of this practice. This perspective shift suggests a strategy to manage patients who seek homoeopathic care and to reconcile them with mainstream medicine in a sustainable way.

The role of patient beliefs in open-label placebo effects

OBJECTIVE

Recent research on open-label placebos, or placebos administered without deception or concealment, suggests that they can be effective in a variety of conditions. The current research sought to unpack the mechanisms underlying the treatment efficacy of open-label placebos.

METHOD

A health care provider induced an allergic reaction in 148 participants via a histamine skin prick test. Participants were then exposed to 1 of 4 conditions additively leveraging various mechanisms of open-label placebo treatments: a supportive patient-provider relationship, a medical ritual, positive expectations, and a rationale about the power of placebos.

RESULTS

There were no main effects of condition on allergic responses. However, participant beliefs about placebos moderated the effect of open-label placebo treatment condition on physiological allergic reactions: the condition including all 4 components of open-label placebos (a supportive patient-provider relationship, a medical ritual, positive expectations, and a rationale about the power of placebos) significantly reduced physiological allergic reaction among participants with a strong belief in placebos compared with participants in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Participants' beliefs about placebos interact with information from the provider to reduce physiological allergic reactions in response to an open-label placebo treatment. This study underscores the importance of measuring and understanding how participants' beliefs influence outcomes of treatment, and furthers our understanding of when and how open-label placebo treatments work. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

The shape of chiropractic in Europe: a cross sectional survey of chiropractor's beliefs and practice

Background

The chiropractic profession both in the past and presently has diverse opinions concerning different health care approaches and the science or otherwise that underpins them. Previous research has reported that adherence to unorthodox descriptions of chiropractic were associated with types of practice behavior considered outside of acceptable evidence-based guidelines in Canada. However, this type of investigation has not been repeated in a European context and such relationships may be different.

Methods

A survey was disseminated amongst European chiropractors during early 2017. Dissemination was through an on-line platform with links to the survey being sent to all European chiropractic associations regardless of European Chiropractors’ Union (ECU) membership and additionally through the European Academy of Chiropractic (EAC). Social media via Facebook groups was also used to disseminate links to the survey.

Results

One thousand three hundred twenty and two responses from chiropractors across Europe representing approximately 17.2% of the profession were collected. Five initial self-determined chiropractic identities were collapsed into 2 groups categorised as orthodox (79.9%) and unorthodox (20.1%). Analysis of responses to a range of questions stratified by such groups was carried out. When comparing the percentage of new patients chiropractors x-rayed, 23% of the unorthodox group x-rayed > 50% of their new patients compared to 5% in the orthodox group. Furthermore, the proportion of respondents reporting > 150 patient encounters per week in the unorthodox group were double compared to the orthodox (22 v 11%). Lastly the proportion of those respondents disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the statement “In general, vaccinations have had a positive effect on global public health” was 57 and 4% in unorthodox and orthodox categories respectively. Logistic regression models identified male gender, seeing more than 150 patients per week, no routine differential diagnosis, and not strongly agreeing that vaccines have generally had a positive impact on health as highly predictive of unorthodox categorisation.

Conclusions

Despite limitations with generalisability in this survey, the proportion of respondents adhering to the different belief categories are remarkably similar to other studies exploring this phenomenon. In addition, and in parallel with other research, this survey suggests that key practice characteristics in contravention of national radiation guidelines or opposition to evidence based public health policy are significantly more associated with non-orthodox chiropractic paradigms.