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

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 impact of contextual factors on nursing outcomes and the role of placebo/nocebo effects: a discussion paper

INTRODUCTION

Placebo and nocebo effects represent one of the most fascinating topics in the health care field.

OBJECTIVES

the aims of this discussion paper were (1) to briefly introduce the placebo and nocebo effects, (2) to elucidate the contextual factors able to trigger placebo and nocebo effects in the nursing field, and (3) to debate the impact of contextual factors on nursing education, practice, organisation, and research.

METHODS

a narrative review was conducted based on the available evidence.

RESULTS

Placebo responses (from Latin "I shall please") are a beneficial outcome(s) triggered by a positive context. The opposite are the nocebo effects (from Latin "I shall harm"), which indicates an undesirable outcome(s) caused by a negative context. Both are complex and distinct psychoneurobiological phenomena in which behavioural and neurophysiological changes arise subsequent to an interaction between the patient and the health care context.

CONCLUSION

Placebo and nocebo concepts have been recently introduced in the nursing discipline, generating a wide debate on ethical issues; however, the impact on nursing education, clinical practice, nursing administration, and research regarding contextual factors triggering nocebo and placebo effects has not been debated to date.

Effects of Open- and Closed-Label Nocebo and Placebo Suggestions on Itch and Itch Expectations

Placebo and nocebo effects have been shown to influence subjective symptoms such as itch. These effects can be induced by influencing outcome expectations through, for example, combining the application of an inert substance (e.g., a cream) with verbal suggestions on the anticipated effects of this substance. Interestingly, placebo effects also occur when it is known that a treatment is inert (i.e., open-label placebo). However, no study to date has examined the efficacy of negative and positive verbal suggestions under similar open-label and closed-label (i.e., concealed placebo/nocebo) conditions in itch. A randomized controlled between-subjects study design was applied in which healthy volunteers (n = 92) were randomized to 1) an open-label positive verbal suggestion group, 2) a closed-label positive verbal suggestion group, 3) an open-label negative verbal suggestion group, or 4) a closed-label negative verbal suggestion group. Verbal suggestions were made regarding the topical application of an inert substance. Itch was evoked experimentally by histamine iontophoresis at baseline and again following suggestions. Itch expectations, self-reported itch during and following iontophoresis, and skin response parameters were measured. Positive suggestions were found to result in significantly lower expected itch than were negative suggestions in both open- and closed-label conditions. No effects of the suggestions on itch during iontophoresis were found, but significantly lower itch was reported in the 4 min following iontophoresis in the (combined open- and closed-label) positive compared with negative verbal suggestion groups. In addition, a smaller increase in skin temperature was found in the positive compared with negative suggestion groups. The findings illustrate a potential role of (open- and closed-label) placebo for optimizing expectations and treatment effects for itch in clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register, trial number: NTR6530.

Placebos in the era of open-label trials: An update for clinicians

Placebos have been used extensively by vast numbers of physicians, in a majority of clinical trials. Placebo effects involve behavioural, psychological and genetic factors and have been subject to ethical controversies stemming from the use of deception in treating patients. The patient-physician encounter, endogenous pharmacological pathways, personality traits and genetic diversity have all been reported to be key players in placebo responses. In the last decade, a new methodological paradigm of placebo research has emerged, using open-label placebos to investigate their effects which showed promising results for various common medical conditions. In this review, we will summarize the current body of evidence on placebos in clinical practice, with a view to open-label placebo trials in particular. It is our view that future larger-scale randomized blinded open placebo trials will benefit physicians and improve patient outcomes.

Does Disclosure About the Common Factors Affect Laypersons' Opinions About How Cognitive Behavioral Psychotherapy Works?

Background: Written and online information about cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) prioritizes the role of specific techniques (e.g., cognitive restructuring) and typically omits discussion of “common factors” (e.g., the working alliance, or therapist empathy). However, according to extensive psychotherapy process research the common factors may be important mediators of client improvement.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess lay opinions about the role of specific and common factors in CBT for depression. We also aimed to determine how different client disclosure processes might affect lay opinions about the relative importance of specific and common factors in CBT.

Methods: We conducted a web-based experiment involving a sample of US participants who had never undergone psychotherapy. All participants were presented with similar vignettes describing an individual suffering from depression whose doctor recommends CBT. Participants were randomized to read one of six vignettes created in a 2 × 3 factorial design that crossed client gender with type of informed consent (Standard CBT Disclosure vs. Common Factors and CBT Disclosure vs. No Disclosure).

Results: Disclosure type had a significant effect on participants' ratings of Common and Specific factors in psychotherapy. As compared to the CBT disclosure, participants allocated to the Common Factors disclosure rated Empathy and Positive Regard as significantly more important to treatment outcome, and rated the Specific factors of CBT as significantly less important to outcome. There were no significant differences between No Disclosure and Standard CBT Disclosure, and these participants rated Specific factors of CBT and the Working Alliance as more important components in treatment, and Empathy and Positive Regard as less important.

Conclusions: The content of information disclosures influences lay opinions about the importance of specific and common factors in CBT. Further research should investigate ethically acceptable disclosures to CBT and other forms of psychotherapy, including whether disclosure practices affect treatment outcome.

Role of placebo effects in pain and neuropsychiatric disorders

The placebo (and the nocebo) effect is a powerful determinant of health outcomes in clinical disease treatment and management. Efforts to completely eradicate placebo effects have shifted dynamically, as increasingly more researchers are tuned to the potentially beneficial effects of incorporating those uncontrollable placebo effects into clinical therapeutic strategies. In this review, we highlight the major findings from placebo research, elucidating the main neurobiological systems and candidate determinants of the placebo phenomenon, and illustrate a perspective that can effectively frame future research on the topic. Finally, we issue a call for increased research on the efficacy of therapeutic strategies that incorporate placebo "tools," and argue that clinical trials of the placebo response in neuropsychiatric diseases and disorders has important and far-reaching translational and clinical relevance.

Physical therapists' perspectives on using contextual factors in clinical practice: Findings from an Italian national survey

Background

Contextual factors (CFs) represent a potential therapeutic tool to boost physiotherapy outcomes, triggering placebo effects. Nevertheless, no evidence about the use of CFs among physical therapists is currently available.

Objective

To investigate the use of CFs and the opinion of Italian physical therapists specialized in Orthopaedic Manual Therapy (OMTs) on their therapeutic benefits.

Design

An exploratory cross-sectional online survey.

Methods

A 17-item questionnaire and 2 clinical vignettes assessed the perspective of OMTs on the adoption of CFs in daily clinical practice. The target population was composed of 906 OMTs. An online survey was performed in 2016 using SurveyMonkey Software. Data were analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics.

Results

A total of 558 volunteers (61.6% of the target OMT population) participated in the study. Half of the participants (52.0%) claimed to use CFs frequently in their practice. More of 50% of OMTs valued the therapeutic significance of CFs for different health problems as determined by a combined psychological and physiological effect. OMTs considered the use of CFs ethically acceptable when they exert beneficial therapeutic effects and their effectiveness has emerged in previous clinical experiences (30.6%). They disagreed on the adoption of CFs when they are deceptive (14.1%). Moreover, OMTs did not communicate the adoption of CFs to patients (38.2%), and CFs were usually used in addition to other interventions to optimize clinical responses (19.9%). Psychological mechanisms, patient’s expectation and conditioning were believed to be the main components behind CFs (7.9%).

Limitations

Considering that the data collected were self-reported and retrospective, recall and response biases may limit the internal and external validity of the findings.

Conclusions

OMTs used CFs in their clinical practice and believed in their therapeutic effect. The knowledge of CFs, placebo and nocebo mechanisms and their clinical effects should be included in physical therapists’ university studies.

Placebo acceptability in chronic pain patients: More dependent on application mode and resulting condition than on individual factors

Introduction

Placebo effects can be very effective in certain pain conditions, but their use is still highly controversial. Several studies show that patients would accept a placebo treatment under certain circumstances, particularly when they are informed prior to the treatment or when there are no effective treatment alternatives. This study examines the question, which factors influence the degree of acceptability of a hypothetical placebo application.

Methods

Patients filled in a questionnaire dealing with placebo applications. Moreover general data, diagnosis, duration of pain, pain ratings and anxiety/depression/stress scores, sleep disorders and opioid intake were collected from the patients` charts. 129 patients (44 men / 85 women, mean age 51.5 years, 18.0–80.9 years) entered the study. All patients had chronic pain syndromes and were treated in an universitary academic interdisciplinary pain center. Mean duration of pain was 14.7 years.

Results

The study did not show significant differences in placebo acceptability among patients with different pain diagnoses or accompanying psychological diagnoses or disorders. Hidden placebo application was considered much more unacceptable for the patients than the enhanced placebo or the open placebo application. An improved condition was associated with less feeling of deception, more trust and less negative mood than an unchanged or worsened condition.

Conclusion

Acceptance of placebo as pain therapy is much more dependent on the way of application (hidden or open) or on the resulting condition (improved, unchanged or worsened) than on factors inherent in the individual patients.

Placebo effects and racial and ethnic health disparities: an unjust and underexplored connection

While a significant body of bioethical literature considers how the placebo effect might introduce a conflict between autonomy and beneficence, the link between justice and the placebo effect has been neglected. Here, we bring together disparate evidence from the field of placebo studies and research on health inequalities related to race and ethnicity, and argue that, collectively, this evidence may provide the basis for an unacknowledged route by which health disparities are exacerbated. This route is constituted by an uneven distribution of placebo effects, resulting from differences in expressions of physician warmth and empathy, as well as support and patient engagement, across racial and ethnic lines. In a discussion of the ethical implications of this connection, we argue that this contribution to health disparities is a source of injustice, consider ways in which these disparities might be ameliorated and suggest that this conclusion is likely to extend to other realms of inequality as well.

Open label placebo: can honestly prescribed placebos evoke meaningful therapeutic benefits?

Results from small clinical trials suggesting that placebos can be ethically and effectively used in clinical practice warrant further study, argue Ted Kaptchuk and Franklin Miller

Harnessing the power of placebos in movement disorders: Insights from Parkinson's disease in clinical research and practice

The placebo effect alongside the detrimental nocebo and lessebo effects associated with the use of placebos are well-recognized phenomena. Research conducted in the last two decades has demonstrated that the placebo effect is a measurable health benefit with well-known neurobiological correlates. In this review, we describe the current knowledge about how to best make use of the placebo effect to improve clinical research and optimize clinical care. We will cover four key topics: (1) setting the stage: historical perspectives on the use of placebos; (2) optimizing the use of placebos in clinical trials; (3) use of placebos in clinical practice; and (4) how can we minimize the ethical risks of using placebos? The adoption of the placebo-controlled trial as a standard in the therapeutic development reduced the placebo effect to background noise in a therapeutic signal. Strategies to minimize the placebo effect in clinical trials have been used to obtain positive efficacy results. In more recent years, new study paradigms encouraged a change in the views on placebos and the placebo effect. Alternative study designs and the development of biomarkers for a placebo response permit a better understanding of the contribution of the placebo effect to the results of interventional studies, without minimizing it. In clinical practice, optimizing the placebo effect (and reducing nocebo effects) has the potential to improve care for our patients, but raises ethical challenges. An enhanced patient-physician relationship would be central to any evidence-based intervention used in clinical care to heighten the placebo effect. © 2018 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Clinical Use of Placebo Effects in Patients With Pain Disorders

The analgesic placebo effect is well documented by numerous studies. Many important influencing factors, however, are yet to be discovered. In the arena of placebo effects and clinical implications, expectancies play a central role. Expectancies are shaped by processes of classical and social learning as well as verbal instructions and are strongly related to emotional factors. Expectancies trigger a cascade of endogenous opioids and non-opioids, which alter the experience of pain. For clinical application it is important to know, that placebo research yields ethical possibilities to use placebo effects without deception and without using placebos. Since placebo effects contribute to responses to active analgesics, it is feasible to enhance patients' benefits from pain treatments by increasing the additional placebo effect. There are several possibilities to use the placebo effects via shaping and adapting information about analgesic medication and via associating medication intake with a positive context. A positive patient-clinician communication atmosphere is very important to generate clinically meaningful placebo effects in pain medicine.

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

Research on open-label placebos questions whether deception is a necessary characteristic of placebo effects. Yet, comparisons between open-label and deceptive placebos (DPs) are lacking. We therefore assessed effects of open-label placebos and DPs in comparison with no treatment (NT) with a standardized experimental heat pain paradigm in a randomized controlled trial in healthy participants. Participants (N = 160) were randomly assigned to NT, open-label placebo without rationale (OPR-), open-label placebo with rationale (OPR), and DP. We conducted baseline and posttreatment measurements of heat pain threshold and tolerance. Apart from the NT, all groups received an application of a placebo cream. Primary outcomes were planned comparisons of heat pain tolerance and the corresponding intensity and unpleasantness ratings. Objective posttreatment pain tolerance did not differ among groups. However, for subjective heat pain ratings at the posttreatment tolerance level, groups with a rationale (OPR and DP) reported diminished heat pain intensity (t(146) = -2.15, P = 0.033, d = 0.43) and unpleasantness ratings (t(146) = -2.43, P = 0.016, d = 0.49) compared with the OPR-group. Interestingly, the OPR and the DP groups did not significantly differ in heat pain intensity (t(146) = -1.10, P = 0.272) or unpleasantness ratings (t(146) = -0.05, P = 0.961) at the posttreatment tolerance level. Our findings reveal that placebos with a plausible rationale are more effective than without a rationale. Even more, open-label placebos did not significantly differ in their effects from DPs. Therefore, we question the ubiquitously assumed necessity of concealment in placebo administration.

Implications of Placebo and Nocebo Effects for Clinical Practice: Expert Consensus

BACKGROUND

Placebo and nocebo effects occur in clinical or laboratory medical contexts after administration of an inert treatment or as part of active treatments and are due to psychobiological mechanisms such as expectancies of the patient. Placebo and nocebo studies have evolved from predominantly methodological research into a far-reaching interdisciplinary field that is unravelling the neurobiological, behavioural and clinical underpinnings of these phenomena in a broad variety of medical conditions. As a consequence, there is an increasing demand from health professionals to develop expert recommendations about evidence-based and ethical use of placebo and nocebo effects for clinical practice.

METHODS

A survey and interdisciplinary expert meeting by invitation was organized as part of the 1st Society for Interdisciplinary Placebo Studies (SIPS) conference in 2017. Twenty-nine internationally recognized placebo researchers participated.

RESULTS

There was consensus that maximizing placebo effects and minimizing nocebo effects should lead to better treatment outcomes with fewer side effects. Experts particularly agreed on the importance of informing patients about placebo and nocebo effects and training health professionals in patient-clinician communication to maximize placebo and minimize nocebo effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The current paper forms a first step towards developing evidence-based and ethical recommendations about the implications of placebo and nocebo research for medical practice, based on the current state of evidence and the consensus of experts. Future research might focus on how to implement these recommendations, including how to optimize conditions for educating patients about placebo and nocebo effects and providing training for the implementation in clinical practice.

Increasing effort without noticing: A randomized controlled pilot study about the ergogenic placebo effect in endurance athletes and the role of supplement salience

Purpose

Previous research shows that endurance performance can be enhanced by placebo ergogenic aids. This study investigates the ergogenic placebo response, which we define as an increase in objective and physiological effort without an increase in subjective effort, in competitive cyclists. The primary objective of this study is to explore the role of supplement salience in the ergogenic placebo response, while the secondary aim is to assess whether believing to have taken an inactive placebo supplement attenuates the desired ergogenic effect.

Methods

We employed a double-blind placebo-controlled study design and compared a high salience (pudding) to a low salience (capsules) ergogenic placebo supplement and to a no treatment control group. Thirty-four male athletes (30.0 ± 5.7 years) performed two self-regulated time trials on an isokinetic cycling ergometer, one without intervention serving as a baseline and one with intervention according to group assignment. At both time trials, power output (objective effort), blood lactate (physiological effort) and the rating of perceived exertion (subjective effort) were measured.

Results

Receiving a high salience supplement can increase physiological and objective effort without a proportional rise in subjective effort, suggesting a decoupling of perceived exertion and endurance performance. Low salience and control group both showed no such ergogenic placebo response. Athletes’ belief concerning the true nature of the ergogenic aid (inactive placebo vs. ergogenic supplement) did not influence the ergogenic placebo response.

Conclusion

High salience placebo ergogenic aids can elicit enhanced performance without the athlete noticing (exertion), and deception of athletes seems unnecessary as even believing to have received an inactive placebo supplement maintains the ergogenic placebo response.

Placebos Without Deception: Outcomes, Mechanisms, and Ethics

Scientific research indicates that open-label and dose-extending placebos (that patients know are placebos) can elicit behavioral, biological, and clinical outcome changes. In this chapter, we present the state-of-the-art evidence and ethical considerations about open-label and dose-extending placebos, discussing the perspective of giving placebos with a rational, as dose extension of active drugs, or expectancy boosters. Previous comprehensive reviews of placebo use have considered how to harness placebo effects in medicine and the need to focus on elements of the clinical encounter as well as patient-clinician relations. Here, we illustrate the similarities and differences between standard (deceptive) placebos, open-label placebos and dose-extending placebos. We conclude that placebos without deception would override ethical barriers to their clinical use. This paves the way to future large-scale, pragmatic randomized trials that investigate the potential of ethical open-label and dose-extending placebos to improve patients' outcomes, and reduce side effects.

The Influence of Expectation on Nondeceptive Placebo and Nocebo Effects

Nondeceptive placebo has demonstrated its efficiency in clinical practice. Although the underlying mechanisms are still unclear, nondeceptive placebo effect and nondeceptive nocebo effect may be mediated by expectation. To examine the extent to which expectation influences these effects, the present study compared nondeceptive placebo and nocebo effects with different expectation levels. Seventy-two healthy female participants underwent a standard conditioning procedure to establish placebo and nocebo effects. Sequentially, participants were randomized to one of the four experimental groups—baseline (BL), no expectation intervention (NoEI), expectation increasing (EI), and expectation decreasing (ED) groups, to receive either no intervention or interventions through different verbal suggestions that modulated their expectation. Placebo and nocebo effects were established in all four groups after the conditioning phase. However, after disclosing the placebo and nocebo, the analgesic and the hyperalgesic effects only persisted in the EI group, when compared with the BL group. Our results provide evidence highlighting the critical role of increased expectation in nondeceptive placebo and nocebo effects. The finding suggests that open-label placebo or nocebo per se might be insufficient to induce strong analgesic or hyperalgesic response and sheds insights into administrating open-label placebo and avoiding open-label nocebo in clinical practice.

Open-Label Placebo Treatment for Cancer-Related Fatigue: A Randomized-Controlled Clinical Trial

The purpose of this 21-day assessor blinded, randomized-controlled trial was to compare an open-label placebo (OLP) to treatment as usual (TAU) for cancer survivors with fatigue. This was followed by an exploratory 21-day study in which TAU participants received OLPs while OLP participants in the main study were followed after discontinuing placebos. Cancer survivors (N = 74) who completed cancer treatment 6 months to 10 years prior to enrollment reporting at least moderate fatigue (i.e., ≥4 on a 0-10 scale) were randomized to OLP or TAU. Those randomized to OLP took 2 placebo pills twice a day for 21 days. Compared to those randomized to TAU, OLP participants reported a 29% improvement in fatigue severity (average difference in the mean change scores (MD) 12.47, 95% CI 3.32, 21.61; P = 0.008), medium effect (d = 0.63), and a 39% improvement in fatigue-disrupted quality of life (MD = 11.76, 95% CI 4.65, 18.86; P = 0.002), a large effect (d = 0.76). TAU participants who elected to try OLP for 21-days after the main study reported reductions in fatigue of a similar magnitude for fatigue severity and fatigue-disrupted quality of life (23% and 35%, respectively). OLP may reduce fatigue symptom severity and fatigue-related quality of life disruption in cancer survivors.

Clinical relevance of contextual factors as triggers of placebo and nocebo effects in musculoskeletal pain

Placebo and nocebo effects are embodied psycho-neurobiological responses capable of modulating pain and producing changes at different neurobiological, body at perceptual and cognitive levels. These modifications are triggered by different contextual factors (CFs) presented in the therapeutic encounter between patient and healthcare providers, such as healing rituals and signs. The CFs directly impact on the quality of the therapeutic outcome: a positive context, that is a context characterized by the presence of positive CFs, can reduce pain by producing placebo effects, while a negative context, characterized by the presence of negative CFs, can aggravate pain by creating nocebo effects. Despite the increasing interest about this topic; the detailed study of CFs as triggers of placebo and nocebo effects is still lacked in the management of musculoskeletal pain.

Increasing evidence suggest a relevant role of CFs in musculoskeletal pain management. CFs are a complex sets of internal, external or relational elements encompassing: patient’s expectation, history, baseline characteristics; clinician’s behavior, belief, verbal suggestions and therapeutic touch; positive therapeutic encounter, patient-centered approach and social learning; overt therapy, posology of intervention, modality of treatment administration; marketing features of treatment and health care setting. Different explanatory models such as classical conditioning and expectancy can explain how CFs trigger placebo and nocebo effects. CFs act through specific neural networks and neurotransmitters that were described as mediators of placebo and nocebo effects.

Available findings suggest a relevant clinical role and impact of CFs. They should be integrated in the clinical reasoning to increase the number of treatment solutions, boosts their efficacy and improve the quality of the decision-making. From a clinical perspective, the mindful manipulation of CFs represents a useful opportunity to enrich a well-established therapy in therapeutic setting within the ethical border. From a translational perspective, there is a strong need of research studies on CFs close to routine and real-world clinical practice in order to underline the uncertainty of therapy action and help clinicians to implement knowledge in daily practice.

Open-label placebo treatment in chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

The study suggests that honestly described open-label placebo pills may have a role in chronic low back pain relief.

This randomized controlled trial was performed to investigate whether placebo effects in chronic low back pain could be harnessed ethically by adding open-label placebo (OLP) treatment to treatment as usual (TAU) for 3 weeks. Pain severity was assessed on three 0- to 10-point Numeric Rating Scales, scoring maximum pain, minimum pain, and usual pain, and a composite, primary outcome, total pain score. Our other primary outcome was back-related dysfunction, assessed on the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire. In an exploratory follow-up, participants on TAU received placebo pills for 3 additional weeks. We randomized 97 adults reporting persistent low back pain for more than 3 months' duration and diagnosed by a board-certified pain specialist. Eighty-three adults completed the trial. Compared to TAU, OLP elicited greater pain reduction on each of the three 0- to 10-point Numeric Rating Scales and on the 0- to 10-point composite pain scale (P < 0.001), with moderate to large effect sizes. Pain reduction on the composite Numeric Rating Scales was 1.5 (95% confidence interval: 1.0-2.0) in the OLP group and 0.2 (−0.3 to 0.8) in the TAU group. Open-label placebo treatment also reduced disability compared to TAU (P < 0.001), with a large effect size. Improvement in disability scores was 2.9 (1.7-4.0) in the OLP group and 0.0 (−1.1 to 1.2) in the TAU group. After being switched to OLP, the TAU group showed significant reductions in both pain (1.5, 0.8-2.3) and disability (3.4, 2.2-4.5). Our findings suggest that OLP pills presented in a positive context may be helpful in chronic low back pain.

Novel designs and paradigms to study the placebo response in gastroenterology

The investigation of the placebo and the nocebo effect and their mechanisms has a rather short history of less than 20 years, especially in gastroenterology, and only the last 5 years have resulted in substantial improvement of understanding. Placebo refers to symptom improvement following a treatment, nocebo to the opposite, symptom worsening. Among the factors driving this progress are traditional psychological models derived from learning (conditioning) theory bridging into clinical science, new animal models to investigate the pharmacology of placebo analgesia, and novel study designs to overcome limitations of traditional randomized and placebo-controlled study designs in drug testing. These are explored here for their implementation and application in gastroenterology, with a focus on visceral pain and nausea.

Placebo prescription and empathy of the physician: A cross-sectional study

Background: Empathy in the patient–physician relationship is a major component in an effective placebo treatment, as in every medical treatment. Understanding the role of empathy of the physician in the placebo effect may help dissect some of the context variables responsible for the effectiveness of the placebo.

Objectives: To determine the frequency of placebo prescription, doctors’ beliefs, motivation, and attitudes to placebos in general practice in northern Portugal and to test the association between placebo prescription and physician empathy.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted between November 2014 and January 2015 among general practice specialists and interns from 14 health centres in a northern Portuguese health region. The self-report questionnaire included the Portuguese version of the Jefferson scale of physician empathy (JSPE) and a questionnaire about placebo prescription. Associations between demographic variables, JSPE score, prescription of placebo, and the attitudes to placebo score were tested with the chi-squared statistic, student t-tests for independent samples, and Pearson correlation.

Results: The study included 93 general practitioners (GP) (response rate: 74%). Placebos were prescribed by 73% (n = 68) of the respondents. GPs who prescribe placebo are significantly younger (mean age = 38.4 years; SD = 11.1; t (90) = 2.98, P <.05, d = 0.67) than non-prescribers (mean age =46.5 years; SD =13.3). Favourable attitudes towards placebo prescription are associated with higher empathy scores (R = 0.310, P <.01).

Conclusion: Placebo prescription is frequent and associated with empathy from the prescriber, especially among younger GPs.

What techniques might be used to harness placebo effects in non-malignant pain? A literature review and survey to develop a taxonomy

OBJECTIVES

Placebo effects can be clinically meaningful but are seldom fully exploited in clinical practice. This review aimed to facilitate translational research by producing a taxonomy of techniques that could augment placebo analgesia in clinical practice.

DESIGN

Literature review and survey.

METHODS

We systematically analysed methods which could plausibly be used to elicit placebo effects in 169 clinical and laboratory-based studies involving non-malignant pain, drawn from seven systematic reviews. In a validation exercise, we surveyed 33 leading placebo researchers (mean 12 years’ research experience, SD 9.8), who were asked to comment on and add to the draft taxonomy derived from the literature.

RESULTS

The final taxonomy defines 30 procedures that may contribute to placebo effects in clinical and experimental research, proposes 60 possible clinical applications and classifies procedures into five domains: the patient’s characteristics and belief (5 procedures and 11 clinical applications), the practitioner’s characteristics and beliefs (2 procedures and 4 clinical applications), the healthcare setting (8 procedures and 13 clinical applications), treatment characteristics (8 procedures and 14 clinical applications) and the patientâ€"practitioner interaction (7 procedures and 18 clinical applications).

CONCLUSION

The taxonomy provides a preliminary and novel tool with potential to guide translational research aiming to harness placebo effects for patient benefit in practice.

Open-label versus double-blind placebo treatment in irritable bowel syndrome: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Placebo medications, by definition, are composed of inactive ingredients that have no physiological effect on symptoms. Nonetheless, administration of placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and in clinical settings has been demonstrated to have significant impact on many physical and psychological complaints. Until recently, conventional wisdom has suggested that patients must believe that placebo pills actually contain (or, at least, might possibly contain) active medication in order to elicit a response to placebo. However, several recent RCTs, including patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), chronic low back pain, and episodic migraine, have demonstrated that individuals receiving open-label placebo (OLP) can still experience symptomatic improvement and benefit from honestly described placebo treatment.

METHODS AND DESIGN

This paper describes an innovative multidisciplinary trial design (n = 280) that attempts to replicate and expand upon an earlier IBS OLP study. The current study will compare OLP to double-blind placebo (DBP) administration which is made possible by including a nested, double-blind RCT comparing DBP and peppermint oil. The study also examines possible genetic and psychological predictors of OLP and seeks to better understand participants' experiences with OLP and DBP through a series of extensive interviews with a randomly selected subgroup.

DISCUSSION

OLP treatment is a novel strategy for ethically harnessing placebo effects. It has potential to re-frame theories of placebo and to influence how physicians can optimize watch-and-wait strategies for common, subjective symptoms. The current study aims to dramatically expand what we know about OLP by comparing, for the first time, OLP and DBP administration. Adopting a unique, multidisciplinary approach, the study also explores genetic, psychological and experiential dimensions of OLP. The paper ends with an extensive discussion of the "culture" of the trial as well as potential mechanisms of OLP and ethical implications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02802241 . Registered on 14 June 2016.

Placebo disclosure does not result in negative changes in mood or attitudes towards health care or the provider

Objectives: The purposes of this study were to (1) determine whether disclosure of having received a placebo treatment following participation in a randomized manual therapy trial resulted in changes in negative mood or attitudes towards health care and the provider and (2) examine the association between changes in mood or attitude and changes in clinical outcomes over the two-week study period. Methods: Participants with low back pain (N = 110) were randomly assigned to receive a spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), a standard placebo SMT in which participants were aware of a chance of receiving a placebo, an enhanced placebo SMT in which participants were instructed 'the manual therapy technique you will receive has been shown to significantly reduce low back pain in some people,' or no treatment. Outcomes included pain (Numeric Rating Scale), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), and negative mood and attitudes towards health care and the provider (visual analog scales). Pain and disability were obtained at baseline and two weeks. Mood and attitude measures were assessed at baseline, at the start of the final session, and upon completion of the final session following disclosure of group assignment. Results: Disclosure of having received a placebo treatment was not associated with worsening of mood or attitudes towards health care or the provider (p > 0.05). A small, but significant (p < 0.05) association was observed between two-week changes in disability and immediate changes in mood (r = 0.31-0.36) upon disclosure of having received a placebo. This analysis indicates an association between larger improvements in disability and more positive changes in mood. Discussion: Placebo treatment use in clinical practice is common yet controversial due to the deceptive nature. Our findings suggest disclosure of having received a placebo treatment is not associated with adverse changes in negative mood or attitudes towards health care or the provider.

How Health Professionals Conceptualize and Represent Placebo Treatment in Clinical Trials and How Their Patients Understand It: Impact on Validity of Informed Consent

Context

Previous studies suggested that many patients, who have given their informed consent to participate in randomized controlled trials (RCT), have somewhat limited understanding of what a placebo treatment is. We hypothesized that the relationship between patients and their health professionals plays a central role in this understanding.

Methods

We interviewed 12 patients included in RCTs (nine suffering from Parkinson’s disease and three from Huntington’s disease) and 18 health professionals involved with RCTs (eight principal investigators, four associated physicians and six clinical research associates). Semi-structured interviews were conducted after the RCTs had ended but before the treatment allocation was revealed.

Results

Only two patients clearly understood the aim of placebo-controlled RCTs. Only one principal investigator said she asks all her patients whether they agree to participate in RCTs. The seven others said they only ask patients who seem more likely to be compliant. Their selection criteria included docility and personality traits associated in other studies with enhanced placebo responses. According to 13 of the 18 health professionals, their relationship with patients may influence the amplitude of the placebo response. All but one clinical research associates added that the placebo response could result from a “maternal” type of care. All principal investigators said they have a strong influence on their patient's decision to participate. Finally, when interviewees were asked to narrate a memory of a medically unexplained healing, in eight of 11 physicians' narratives the beneficiary was a child while in 10 of 12 patients' narratives it was an adult.

Conclusion

Our observations suggest that the interrelationship between health professionals and patients involved in RCTs could be compared to that between parents and children. Therefore, adherence to formal rules regarding informed consent does not ensure a balanced relationship between patients and health professionals.