Placebo treatment versus no treatment

Can placebo or nocebo pills improve or impair cognition performance?

OBJECTIVE

Although the placebo effect is well known to affect many behaviors, the effects on cognitive performance are less well investigated.

METHODS

In this study, the effects of a placebo and a nocebo manipulation on cognitive performance was investigated in healthy young participants in an unblinded between-subjects study. In addition, the participants were asked about their subjective experience in the placebo and nocebo condition.

RESULTS

The data suggested that the placebo condition induced the feeling of being more attentive and more motivated and the nocebo condition induced a feeling of being less attentive and alert and that they performed less well than normal. However, no placebo or nocebo effects were found on the actual performance on word learning, working memory, Tower of London task, or spatial pattern separation.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings further support the notion that placebo or nocebo effects are not likely to occur in young healthy volunteers. However, other studies suggest that placebo effects can be found in implicit memory tasks and in participants with memory problems. Further placebo/nocebo studies are indicated using different experimental designs and different populations in order to better understand the placebo effect on cognitive performance.

Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders

BACKGROUND

Control interventions in randomised trials provide a frame of reference for the experimental interventions and enable estimations of causality. In the case of randomised trials assessing patients with mental health disorders, many different control interventions are used, and the choice of control intervention may have considerable impact on the estimated effects of the treatments being evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of typical control interventions in randomised trials with patients with mental health disorders. The difference in effects between control interventions translates directly to the impact a control group has on the estimated effect of an experimental intervention. We aimed primarily to assess the difference in effects between (i) wait-list versus no-treatment, (ii) usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment, and (iii) placebo interventions (all placebo interventions combined or psychological, pharmacological, and physical placebos individually) versus wait-list or no-treatment. Wait-list patients are offered the experimental intervention by the researchers after the trial has been finalised if it offers more benefits than harms, while no-treatment participants are not offered the experimental intervention by the researchers.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2018, we searched MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, CENTRAL, and seven other databases and six trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials assessing patients with a mental health disorder that compared wait-list, usual care, or placebo interventions with wait-list or no-treatment .

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed for eligibility. Review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for data from additional published and unpublished trials. A pre-planned decision hierarchy was used to select one benefit and one harm outcome from each trial. For the assessment of benefits, we summarised continuous data as standardised mean differences (SMDs) and dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs). We used risk differences (RDs) for the assessment of adverse events. We used random-effects models for all statistical analyses. We used subgroup analysis to explore potential causes for heterogeneity (e.g. type of placebo) and sensitivity analyses to explore the robustness of the primary analyses (e.g. fixed-effect model).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 96 randomised trials (4200 participants), ranging from 8 to 393 participants in each trial. 83 trials (3614 participants) provided usable data. The trials included 15 different mental health disorders, the most common being anxiety (25 trials), depression (16 trials), and sleep-wake disorders (11 trials). All 96 trials were assessed as high risk of bias partly because of the inability to blind participants and personnel in trials with two control interventions. The quality of evidence was rated low to very low, mostly due to risk of bias, imprecision in estimates, and heterogeneity. Only one trial compared wait-list versus no-treatment directly but the authors were not able to provide us with any usable data on the comparison. Five trials compared usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment and found a SMD -0.33 (95% CI -0.83 to 0.16, I² = 86%, 523 participants) on benefits. The difference between all placebo interventions combined versus wait-list or no-treatment was SMD -0.37 (95% CI -0.49 to -0.25, I² = 41%, 65 trials, 2446 participants) on benefits. There was evidence of some asymmetry in the funnel plot (Egger's test P value of 0.087). Almost all the trials were small. Subgroup analysis found a moderate effect in favour of psychological placebos SMD -0.49 (95% CI -0.64 to -0.30; I² = 53%, 39 trials, 1656 participants). The effect of pharmacological placebos versus wait-list or no-treatment on benefits was SMD -0.14 (95% CI -0.39 to 0.11, 9 trials, 279 participants) and the effect of physical placebos was SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.35 to -0.08, I² = 0%, 17 trials, 896 participants). We found large variations in effect sizes in the psychological and pharmacological placebo comparisons. For specific mental health disorders, we found significant differences in favour of all placebos for sleep-wake disorders, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorders, but the analyses were imprecise due to sparse data. We found no significant differences in harms for any of the comparisons but the analyses suffered from sparse data. When using a fixed-effect model in a sensitivity analysis on the comparison for usual care versus wait-list and no-treatment, the results were significant with an SMD of -0.46 (95 % CI -0.64 to -0.28). We reported an alternative risk of bias model where we excluded the blinding domains seeing how issues with blinding may be seen as part of the review investigation itself. However, this did not markedly change the overall risk of bias profile as most of the trials still included one or more unclear bias domains.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found marked variations in effects between placebo versus no-treatment and wait-list and between subtypes of placebo with the same comparisons. Almost all the trials were small with considerable methodological and clinical variability in factors such as mental health population, contents of the included control interventions, and outcome domains. All trials were assessed as high risk of bias and the evidence quality was low to very low. When researchers decide to use placebos or usual care control interventions in trials with people with mental health disorders it will often lead to lower estimated effects of the experimental intervention than when using wait-list or no-treatment controls. The choice of a control intervention therefore has considerable impact on how effective a mental health treatment appears to be. Methodological guideline development is needed to reach a consensus on future standards for the design and reporting of control interventions in mental health intervention research.

Acupuncture for the Treatment of Pain - A Mega-Placebo?

Several control conditions, such as penetrating sham acupuncture and non-penetrating placebo needles, have been used in clinical trials on acupuncture effects in chronic pain syndromes. All these control conditions are surprisingly effective with regard to their analgesic properties. These findings have fostered a discussion as to whether acupuncture is merely a placebo. Meta-analyses on the clinical effectiveness of placebo revealed that placebo interventions in general have minor, clinically important effects. Only in trials on pain and nausea, including acupuncture studies, did placebo effects vary from negligible to clinically important. At the same time, individual patient meta-analyses confirm that acupuncture is effective for the treatment of chronic pain, including small but statistically significant differences between acupuncture and sham acupuncture. All acupuncture control conditions induce de qi, a distinct stimulation associated with pain and needling which has been shown to be a nociceptive/pain stimulus. Acupuncture therefore probably activates the pain matrix in the brain in a bottom-up fashion via the spino-thalamic tract. Central nervous system effects of acupuncture can be modulated through expectations, which are believed to be a central component of the placebo response. However, further investigation is required to determine how strong the influence of placebo on the attenuation of activity in the pain matrix really is. A meta-analysis of individual participant functional magnetic imaging data reveals only weak effects of placebo on the activity of the pain network. The clinical acupuncture setting is comprised of a combination of a distinct neurophysiological stimulus, the needling stimulus/experience, and a complex treatment situation. A broader definition of placebo, such as that proposed by Howick (2017) acknowledges a role for expectation, treatment context, emotions, learning, and other contextual variables of a treatment situation. The inclusion of particular treatment feature as a definitional element permits a contextual definition of placebo, which in turn can be helpful in constructing future clinical trials on acupuncture.

The effects of acupuncture on pregnancy outcomes of in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effects of acupuncture on in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes remain controversial. And the variation in participant, interventions, outcomes studied, and trial design may relate to the efficacy of adjuvant acupuncture.

METHODS

We searched digital databases for relevant studies, including Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library and some Chinese databases up to December 2018, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of acupuncture on women undergoing IVF. We included studies with intervention groups using needling, and control groups consisting of no acupuncture or sham (placebo) acupuncture. Primary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR). Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were conducted on the basis of eight pre-specified covariates to investigate the variances of the effects of adjuvant acupuncture on pregnancy rates and the sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies with 6116 participants were included. The pooled clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) from all of acupuncture groups was significantly greater than that of control groups (RR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.07-1.38), whereas the pooled live birth rate (LBR) was not. Meta-regression subgroup analysis showed a more significant benefit of acupuncture for repeated IVF cycle proportion (number of women with a history of prior unsuccessful IVF attempt divided by number of women included in each trial) ≥ 50% group (CPR: RR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.28-2.00; LBR: RR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.05-1.92), and this covariate explained most of the heterogeneity (CPR and LBR: adjusted R2 = 100 and 87.90%). Similar results were found between CPR and number of acupuncture treatments (CPR: p = 0.002, adjusted R2 = 51.90%), but not LBR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis finds a benefit of acupuncture for IVF outcomes in women with a history of unsuccessful IVF attempt, and number of acupuncture treatments is a potential influential factor. Given the poor reporting and methodological flaws of existing studies, studies with larger scales and better methodologies are needed to verify these findings.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study for evaluating the effects of fixed-dose combinations of vitamin C, vitamin E, lysozyme, and carbazochrome on gingival inflammation in chronic periodontitis patients

Background

To evaluate gingival inflammation from fixed-dose combinations of vitamin C, vitamin E, lysozyme and carbazochrome (CELC) in the treatment of chronic periodontitis following scaling and root planing.

Methods

One hundred patients were randomly assigned to receive CELC (test) or placebo (control) for the first 4 weeks at a 1:1 ratio, and both groups received CELC for the remaining 4 weeks. Primary outcome was the mean change in the gingival index (GI) after 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes included mean change in GI after 8 weeks and plaque index, probing depth, clinical attachment level, and VAS at 4 weeks and 8 weeks.

Results

Ninety-three patients completed the study. The GI in the test group significantly decreased after 4 weeks (p < 0.001) and 8 weeks (p < 0.001). The mean change from baseline in GI significantly decreased in the test group compared to the control group after 4 weeks (p = 0.015). In the GEE model adjusting for age, gender and visits, the test group showed 2.5 times GI improvement compared to the control group (p = 0.022).

Conclusions

Within the study, CELC showed a significant reduction in gingival inflammation compared with a placebo. Other parameters, however, were similar between groups.

Trial registration

KCT0001366 (Clinical Research Information Service, Republic of Korea) and 29 Jan 2015, retrospectively registered.

Age and sex as moderators of the placebo response – an evaluation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses across medicine

Predictors of the placebo response (PR) in randomized controlled trials (RCT) have been searched for ever since RCT have become the standard for testing novel therapies and age and gender are routinely documented data in all trials irrespective of the drug tested, its indication, and the primary and secondary end points chosen. To evaluate whether age and gender have been found to be reliable predictors of the PR across medical subspecialties, we extracted 75 systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-regressions performed in major medical areas (neurology, psychiatry, internal medicine) known for high PR rates. The literature database used contains approximately 2,500 papers on various aspects of the genuine PR. These ‘meta-analyses’ were screened for statistical predictors of the PR across multiple RCT, including age and gender, but also other patient-based and design-based predictors of higher PR rates. Retrieved papers were sorted for areas and disease categories. Only 15 of the 75 analyses noted an effect of younger age to be associated with higher PR, and this was predominantly in psychiatric conditions but not in depression, and internal medicine but not in gastroenterology. Female gender was associated with higher PR in only 3 analyses. Among the patient-based predictors, the most frequently noted factor was lower symptom severity at baseline, and among the design- based factors, it was a randomization ratio that selected more patients to drugs than to placebo, more frequent study visits, and more recent trials that were associated with higher PR rates. While younger age may contribute to the PR in some conditions, sex does not. There is currently no evidence that the PR is different in the elderly. PR are, however, markedly influenced by the symptom severity at baseline, and by the likelihood of receiving active treatment in placebo- controlled trials.

Exploring the effect of space and place on response to exercise therapy for knee and hip pain--a protocol for a double-blind randomised controlled clinical trial: the CONEX trial

INTRODUCTION

Context effects are described as effects of a given treatment, not directly caused by the treatment itself, but rather caused by the context in which treatment is delivered. Exercise is a recommended core treatment in clinical guidelines for musculoskeletal disorders. Although moderately effective overall, variation is seen in size of response to exercise across randomised controlled trial (RCT) studies. Part of this variation may be related to the fact that exercise interventions are performed in different physical environments, which may affect participants differently. The study aims to investigate the effect of exercising in a contextually enhanced physical environment for 8 weeks in people with knee or hip pain.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study is a double-blind RCT. Eligible participants are 35 years or older with persisting knee and/or hip pain for 3 months. Participants are randomised to one of three groups: (1) exercise in a contextually enhanced environment, (2) exercise in a standard environment and (3) waiting list. The contextually enhanced environment is located in a newly built facility, has large windows providing abundant daylight and overlooks a recreational park. The standard environment is in a basement, has artificial lighting and is marked by years of use; that is, resembling many clinical environments. The primary outcome is the participant's global perceived effect rated on a seven-point Likert scale after 8 weeks exercise. Patient-reported and objective secondary outcomes are included.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Regional Scientific Ethical Committee for Southern Denmark has approved the study. Study findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and presented at national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02043613.

Nonsurgical outpatient therapies for the management of female stress urinary incontinence: long-term effectiveness and durability

Objective. To evaluate long-term effectiveness and safety of conservative and minimally invasive outpatient treatments for female stress urinary incontinence (SUI) through a review of the literature. Methods. PubMed was searched for reports on prospective clinical trials with at least 12-month follow-up of minimally invasive treatments, pelvic floor rehabilitation, or pharmacotherapy in women with SUI. Each report was examined for long-term rates of effectiveness and safety. Results. Thirty-two clinical trial reports were included. Prospective long-term studies of pelvic floor rehabilitation were limited but indicated significant improvements with treatment adherence for at least 12 months. Poor initial tolerability with duloxetine resulted in substantial discontinuation. Most patients receiving transurethral radiofrequency collagen denaturation or urethral bulking agents reported significant long-term improvements, generally good tolerability, and safety. Conclusions. Conservative therapy is an appropriate initial approach for female SUI, but if therapy fails, radiofrequency collagen denaturation or bulking agents may be an attractive intermediate management step or alternative to surgery.

Clinical trial design in non-invasive brain stimulation psychiatric research

Major depressive disorder (MDD) trials - investigating either non-pharmacological or pharmacological interventions - have shown mixed results. Many reasons explain this heterogeneity, but one that stands out is the trial design due to specific challenges in the field. We aimed therefore to review the methodology of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) trials and provide a framework to improve clinical trial design. We performed a systematic review for randomized, controlled MDD trials whose intervention was transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in MEDLINE and other databases from April 2002 to April 2008. We created an unstructured checklist based on CONSORT guidelines to extract items such as power analysis, sham method, blinding assessment, allocation concealment, operational criteria used for MDD, definition of refractory depression and primary study hypotheses. Thirty-one studies were included. We found that the main methodological issues can be divided in to three groups: (1) issues related to phase II/small trials, (2) issues related to MDD trials and, (3) specific issues of NIBS studies. Taken together, they can threaten study validity and lead to inconclusive results. Feasible solutions include: estimating the sample size a priori; measuring the degree of refractoriness of the subjects; specifying the primary hypothesis and statistical tests; controlling predictor variables through stratification randomization methods or using strict eligibility criteria; adjusting the study design to the target population; using adaptive designs and exploring NIBS efficacy employing biological markers. In conclusion, our study summarizes the main methodological issues of NIBS trials and proposes a number of alternatives to manage them.

Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions

BACKGROUND

Placebo interventions are often claimed to substantially improve patient-reported and observer-reported outcomes in many clinical conditions, but most reports on effects of placebos are based on studies that have not randomised patients to placebo or no treatment. Two previous versions of this review from 2001 and 2004 found that placebo interventions in general did not have clinically important effects, but that there were possible beneficial effects on patient-reported outcomes, especially pain. Since then several relevant trials have been published.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary aims were to assess the effect of placebo interventions in general across all clinical conditions, and to investigate the effects of placebo interventions on specific clinical conditions. Our secondary aims were to assess whether the effect of placebo treatments differed for patient-reported and observer-reported outcomes, and to explore other reasons for variations in effect.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2008), EMBASE (1980 to March 2008), PsycINFO (1887 to March 2008) and Biological Abstracts (1986 to March 2008). We contacted experts on placebo research, and read references in the included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised placebo trials with a no-treatment control group investigating any health problem.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Trials with binary data were summarised using relative risk (a value of less than 1 indicates a beneficial effect of placebo), and trials with continuous outcomes were summarised using standardised mean difference (a negative value indicates a beneficial effect of placebo).

MAIN RESULTS

Outcome data were available in 202 out of 234 included trials, investigating 60 clinical conditions. We regarded the risk of bias as low in only 16 trials (8%), five of which had binary outcomes.In 44 studies with binary outcomes (6041 patients), there was moderate heterogeneity (P < 0.001; I(2) 45%) but no clear difference in effects between small and large trials (symmetrical funnel plot). The overall pooled effect of placebo was a relative risk of 0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.99). The pooled relative risk for patient-reported outcomes was 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.00) and for observer-reported outcomes 0.93 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.02). We found no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in four clinical conditions that had been investigated in three trials or more: pain, nausea, smoking, and depression, but confidence intervals were wide. The effect on pain varied considerably, even among trials with low risk of bias.In 158 trials with continuous outcomes (10,525 patients), there was moderate heterogeneity (P < 0.001; I(2) 42%), and considerable variation in effects between small and large trials (asymmetrical funnel plot). It is therefore a questionable procedure to pool all the trials, and we did so mainly as a basis for exploring causes for heterogeneity. We found an overall effect of placebo treatments, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.17). The SMD for patient-reported outcomes was -0.26 (95% CI -0.32 to -0.19), and for observer-reported outcomes, SMD -0.13 (95% CI -0.24 to -0.02). We found an effect on pain, SMD -0.28 (95% CI -0.36 to -0.19)); nausea, SMD -0.25 (-0.46 to -0.04)), asthma (-0.35 (-0.70 to -0.01)), and phobia (SMD -0.63 (95% CI -1.17 to -0.08)). The effect on pain was very variable, also among trials with low risk of bias. Four similarly-designed acupuncture trials conducted by an overlapping group of authors reported large effects (SMD -0.68 (-0.85 to -0.50)) whereas three other pain trials reported low or no effect (SMD -0.13 (-0.28 to 0.03)). The pooled effect on nausea was small, but consistent. The effects on phobia and asthma were very uncertain due to high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in the seven other clinical conditions investigated in three trials or more: smoking, dementia, depression, obesity, hypertension, insomnia and anxiety, but confidence intervals were wide.Meta-regression analyses showed that larger effects of placebo interventions were associated with physical placebo interventions (e.g. sham acupuncture), patient-involved outcomes (patient-reported outcomes and observer-reported outcomes involving patient cooperation), small trials, and trials with the explicit purpose of studying placebo. Larger effects of placebo were also found in trials that did not inform patients about the possible placebo intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find that placebo interventions have important clinical effects in general. However, in certain settings placebo interventions can influence patient-reported outcomes, especially pain and nausea, though it is difficult to distinguish patient-reported effects of placebo from biased reporting. The effect on pain varied, even among trials with low risk of bias, from negligible to clinically important. Variations in the effect of placebo were partly explained by variations in how trials were conducted and how patients were informed.

Spontaneous improvement in randomised clinical trials: meta-analysis of three-armed trials comparing no treatment, placebo and active intervention

BACKGROUND

It can be challenging for patients and clinicians to properly interpret a change in the clinical condition after a treatment has been given. It is not known to which extent spontaneous improvement, effect of placebo and effect of active interventions contribute to the observed change from baseline, and we aimed at quantifying these contributions.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis, based on a Cochrane review of the effect of placebo interventions for all clinical conditions. We selected all trials that had randomised the patients to three arms: no treatment, placebo and active intervention, and that had used an outcome that was measured on a continuous scale or on a ranking scale. Clinical conditions that had been studied in less than three trials were excluded.

RESULTS

We analysed 37 trials (2900 patients) that covered 8 clinical conditions. The active interventions were psychological in 17 trials, physical in 15 trials, and pharmacological in 5 trials. Overall, across all conditions and interventions, there was a statistically significant change from baseline in all three arms. The standardized mean difference (SMD) for change from baseline was -0.24 (95% confidence interval -0.36 to -0.12) for no treatment, -0.44 (-0.61 to -0.28) for placebo, and -1.01 (-1.16 to -0.86) for active treatment. Thus, on average, the relative contributions of spontaneous improvement and of placebo to that of the active interventions were 24% and 20%, respectively, but with some uncertainty, as indicated by the confidence intervals for the three SMDs. The conditions that had the most pronounced spontaneous improvement were nausea (45%), smoking (40%), depression (35%), phobia (34%) and acute pain (25%).

CONCLUSION

Spontaneous improvement and effect of placebo contributed importantly to the observed treatment effect in actively treated patients, but the relative importance of these factors differed according to clinical condition and intervention.

Critical Appraisal of Reports on the Treatment of Perioral Dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Presently, problems exist with the rationale of oral therapy and the nature and indication of topical and accompanying treatment of perioral dermatitis.

OBJECTIVE

Providing the basis to overcome these problems by a quality evaluation of treatment reports and assessment of the consistency of treatment experience.

METHODS

Sources were Medline (1964-2004), Embase (1966-2004), the Cochrane Central (1971-2004) and 526 references of 3 textbooks, 2 recent reviews and 30 papers on perioral dermatitis. Thirty English and German articles were selected. These studies were evaluated according to principles of evidence-based medicine and related criteria. Evaluation of 28 papers was carried out by the authors and of our own 2 papers by 2 other reviewers. Consistency of results was qualitatively assessed by the authors.

RESULTS

There were only 2 therapeutic trials of medium-range quality. The other studies were of low quality. Consistency was noted concerning treatment with oral tetracycline (with 1 exception), discontinuation of topical corticosteroids and cosmetics and, to a lesser extent, regarding no therapy. There was inconsistency in respect to topical therapy.

CONCLUSION

The presented data help to interpret and conduct studies on the treatment of perioral dermatitis.

How to assess epidemiological studies

Assessing the quality of an epidemiological study equates to assessing whether the inferences drawn from it are warranted when account is taken of the methods, the representativeness of the study sample, and the nature of the population from which it is drawn. Bias, confounding, and chance can threaten the quality of an epidemiological study at all its phases. Nevertheless, their presence does not necessarily imply that a study should be disregarded. The reader must first balance any of these threats or missing information with their potential impact on the conclusions of the report.