Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Activity in Adverse Events Reporting after Placebo Administration

A new experimental rat model of nocebo-related nausea involving double mechanisms of observational learning and conditioning

AIM

The nocebo effect, such as nausea and vomiting, is one of the major reasons patients discontinue therapy. The underlying mechanisms remain unknown due to a lack of reliable experimental models. The goal of this study was to develop a new animal model of nocebo-related nausea by combining observational learning and Pavlovian conditioning paradigms.

METHODS

Male Sprague-Dawley rats with nitroglycerin-induced migraine were given 0.9% saline (a placebo) or LiCl (a nausea inducer) following headache relief, according to different paradigms.

RESULTS

Both strategies provoked nocebo nausea responses, with the conditioning paradigm having a greater induction impact. The superposition of two mechanisms led to a further increase in nausea responses. A preliminary investigation of the underlying mechanism revealed clearly raised peripheral and central cholecystokinin (CCK) levels, as well as specific changes in the 5-hydroxytryptamine and cannabinoid systems. Brain networks related to emotion, cognition, and visceral sense expressed higher c-Fos-positive neurons, including the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), insula, basolateral amygdala (BLA), thalamic paraventricular nucleus (PVT), hypothalamic paraventricular nucleus (PVN), nucleus tractus solitarius (NTS), periaqueductal gray (PAG), and dorsal raphe nucleus-dorsal part (DRD). We also found that nausea expectances in the model could last for at least 12 days.

CONCLUSION

The present study provides a useful experimental model of nocebo nausea that might be used to develop potential molecular pathways and therapeutic strategies for nocebo.

Placebo and nocebo in the treatment of migraine: How much does real world effectiveness depend on contextual effects?

PURPOSE

Treatments in medicine impact individuals beyond their intended effects, due to phenomena such as the placebo and nocebo effects. The placebo effect arises from the positive expectation of a treatment being beneficial, while the nocebo effect stems from the negative expectation of a treatment causing harm. Both in real-world practice and clinical trials, treatments can lead to outcomes unrelated to their intended mechanism of action, which we categorize as placebo and nocebo responses. These responses, combined with the inherent fluctuation in a condition's natural progression, regression to the mean, and random comorbidities, make up a significant part of the therapeutic experience. Particularly in pain management, placebo and nocebo effects play a substantial role. By addressing modifiable contextual factors such as patient expectations, lifestyle choices, and the therapeutic relationship, healthcare providers can enhance the effectiveness of migraine treatments, paving the way for a more comprehensive, individualized approach to patient care. We must also consider non-modifiable factors like personal experiences, beliefs, and information from social media and the internet.

CONCLUSION

This review offers a summary of our current understanding of the placebo and nocebo effects in migraine management.

Functional neurological disorder and placebo and nocebo effects: shared mechanisms

Functional neurological disorder (FND) is characterized by neurological symptoms that cannot be explained by a structural neurological cause. Among the different aetiological models that have been proposed for FND, of note is the Bayesian predictive coding model, which posits that perception relies on top-down cortical predictions (priors) to infer the source of incoming sensory information. This model can also apply to non-pathological experiences, such as placebo and nocebo effects, wherein sensory information is shaped by prior expectations and learning. To date, most studies of the relationship between placebo and nocebo effects and FND have focused on the use of placebos for diagnosis and treatment of FND. Here, we propose that this relationship might go beyond diagnosis and therapy. We develop a framework in which shared cognitive, personality and neuroanatomical factors justify the consideration of a deeper link between FND and placebo and nocebo effects. This new perspective might offer guidance for clarification of the pathogenesis of FND and for the identification of potential biomarkers and therapeutic targets.

Adverse events of active and placebo groups in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine randomized trials: A systematic review

Background

For safety assessment in clinical trials, adverse events (AEs) are reported for the drug under evaluation and compared with AEs in the placebo group. Little is known about the nature of the AEs associated with clinical trials of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the extent to which these can be traced to nocebo effects, where negative treatment-related expectations favor their occurrence.

Methods

In our systematic review, we compared the rates of solicited AEs in the active and placebo groups of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved by the Western pharmaceutical regulatory agencies.We implemented a search strategy to identify trial-III studies of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines through the PubMed database. We adopted the PRISMA Statement to perform the study selection and the data collection and identified three trial: two mRNA-based (37590 participants) and one adenovirus type (6736 participants).

Findings

Relative risks showed that the occurrence of AEs reported in the vaccine groups was higher compared with the placebo groups. The most frequently AEs in both groups were fatigue, headache, local pain, as injection site reactions, and myalgia. In particular, for first doses in placebo recipients, fatigue was reported in 29% and 27% in BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively, and in 21% of Ad26.COV2.S participants. Headache was reported in 27% in both mRNA groups and in 24% of Ad26.COV2.S recipients. Myalgia was reported in 10% and 14% in mRNA groups (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively) and in 13% of Ad26.COV2.S participants. Local pain was reported in 12% and 17% in mRNA groups (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively), and in 17% of Ad26.COV2.S recipients. These AEs are more common in the younger population and in the first dose of placebo recipients of the mRNA vaccines.

Interpretation

Our results are in agreement with the expectancy theory of nocebo effects and suggest that the AEs associated with COVID-19 vaccines may be related to the nocebo effect.

Funding

Fondazione CRT - Cassa di Risparmio di Torino, IT (grant number 66346, "GAIA-MENTE" 2019).