Pain-related negative emotions and placebo analgesia

A social affective neuroscience lens on placebo analgesia

Pain is a fundamental experience that promotes survival. In humans, pain stands at the intersection of multiple health crises: chronic pain, the opioid epidemic, and health disparities. The study of placebo analgesia highlights how social, cognitive, and affective processes can directly shape pain, and identifies potential paths for mitigating these crises. This review examines recent progress in the study of placebo analgesia through affective science. It focuses on how placebo effects are shaped by expectations, affect, and the social context surrounding treatment, and discusses neurobiological mechanisms of placebo, highlighting unanswered questions and implications for health. Collaborations between clinicians and social and affective scientists can address outstanding questions and leverage placebo to reduce pain and improve human health.

Personality differences in brain network mechanisms for placebo analgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia in experimental pain: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study

Background

Placebo and nocebo responses have been increasingly gaining the attention of clinical and scientific researchers. Inconsistent conclusions from current studies indicate that different factors potentially affect both placebo and nocebo responses. Increasing evidence suggests that personality differences may affect the mechanisms of both two responses. In the present work, we explored the characteristics of neural signals of placebo and nocebo responses based on functional connectivity (FC) analysis and Granger causality analysis (GCA).

Methods

A total of 34 healthy participants received conditional induction training to establish placebo and nocebo responses. Every participant completed the following experimental workflow, including scanning of baseline, experimental low back pain model establishment, scanning of acute pain status, and scanning of placebo response or nocebo response. We collect visual analogue scale (VAS) data after each scanning. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data from different personality groups were subjected to FC analysis and multivariate GCA (mGCA).

Results

Pain scores for placebo and nocebo responses were statistically different across different personality. There are also statistically differences in the neural signals of two responses across different personality.

Conclusions

The findings of the present study indicated that extroverted and introverted participants are likely to experience placebo analgesic effects and nocebo hyperalgesia effects, respectively. Both extroverted and introverted participants showed significant changes in brain networks under placebo response. Variation in emotional control and ventromedial prefrontal cortex inactivity may constitute the bulk of the personality differences in placebo analgesia. Differences in the regulation of the sensory conduction system (SCS) and release of the emotional circuit could be important factors affecting personality differences in nocebo hyperalgesia.

Personality Differences of Brain Networks in Placebo Analgesia and Nocebo Hyperalgesia: A Psychophysiological Interaction (PPI) Approach in fMRI

It is generally believed that the placebo response can elicit an analgesic effect, whilst the nocebo response can elicit a hyperalgesia effect in pain. Placebo analgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia effects are increasing concerns for researchers. Growing evidence suggests personality differences have an impact on both placebo and nocebo effects. However, previous studies have not reached a unified conclusion. We designed this study to explore the personality differences of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) signals in placebo response and nocebo response by using psychophysiological interaction (PPI) analysis. 30 healthy subjects underwent conditioning induction training to establish expectations of placebo effect and nocebo effect, and then, all subjects completed the following experimental procedures: (1) baseline scanning, (2) acute pain model establishment, (3) pain status scanning, and (4) pseudorandom scanning of block design of placebo response or nocebo response. Behavioral data were collected after each scan. The results of this study showed that (1) there were significant differences of VAS placebo intervention between the extrovert group and the introvert group (p = 0.004); (2) there were significant differences of VAS nocebo intervention between the extrovert group and the introvert group (p = 0.011); (3) there were significant differences between the VAS placebo intervention and VAS pain status (baseline) in both the extrovert group (p < 0.001) and the introvert group (p = 0.001); (4) there were significant differences between the VAS nocebo intervention and VAS pain status (baseline) in both the extrovert group (p = 0.008) and the introvert group (p < 0.001). Moreover, there were significant differences in the brain network for placebo and nocebo responses between different personalities. We found that (1) deactivation differences of the pain-related network and limbic system play an important role in personality differences associated with placebo analgesia and (2) differences of control of anxiety and activation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex may cause the personality differences observed in nocebo hyperalgesia.

Pain, placebo, and test of treatment efficacy: a narrative review

Over the past decade, the mechanisms underlying placebo effects have begun to be identified. At the same time, the placebo response appears to have increased in pharmacological trials and marked placebo effects are found in neurostimulation and surgical trials, thereby posing the question whether non-pharmacological interventions should be placebo-controlled to a greater extent. In this narrative review we discuss how the knowledge of placebo mechanisms may help to improve placebo control in pharmacological and non-pharmacological trials. We review the psychological, neurobiological, and genetic mechanisms underlying placebo analgesia and outline the current problems and potential solutions to the challenges with placebo control in trials on pharmacological, neurostimulation, and surgical interventions. We particularly focus on how patients' perception of the therapeutic intervention, and their expectations towards treatment efficacy may help develop more precise placebo controls and blinding procedures and account for the contribution of placebo factors to the efficacy of active treatments. Finally, we discuss how systematic investigations into placebo mechanisms across various pain conditions and types of treatment are needed in order to 'personalise' the placebo control to the specific pathophysiology and interventions, which may ultimately lead to identification of more effective treatment for pain patients. In conclusion this review shows that it is important to understand how patients' perception and expectations influence the efficacy of active and placebo treatments in order to improve the test of new treatments. Importantly, this applies not only to assessment of drug efficacy but also to non-pharmacological trials on surgeries and stimulation procedures.

How May Placebo Mechanisms Influence Orofacial Neuropathic Pain?

The conceptualization of placebo has changed from inactive pills to a detailed understanding of how patients' perception of receiving a treatment influences pain processing and overall treatment outcome. Large placebo effects were recently demonstrated in chronic neuropathic pain, thereby opening the question of whether placebo effects also apply to orofacial neuropathic pain. In this article, we review the new definitions, magnitude, and social, psychological, neurobiologic, and genetic mechanisms of placebo effects in pain, especially neuropathic pain, to illustrate that placebo effects are not simply response bias but psychoneurobiological phenomena that can be measured at many levels of the neuroaxis. We use this knowledge to carefully illustrate how patients' perceptions of the treatment, the relationship with the health care provider, and the expectations and emotions toward a treatment can influence test and treatment outcome and potentially skew the results if they are not taken into consideration. Orofacial neuropathic pain is a new research area, and we review the status on definition, diagnosis, mechanisms, and pharmacologic treatment of neuropathic pain after trigeminal nerve injury, as this condition may be especially influenced by placebo factors. Finally, we have a detailed discussion of how knowledge of placebo mechanisms may help improve the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of orofacial neuropathic pain, and we illustrate pitfalls and opportunities of applying this knowledge to the test of dental treatments.

Can a Brief Relaxation Exercise Modulate Placebo or Nocebo Effects in a Visceral Pain Model?

Translational research aiming to elucidate mediators and moderators of placebo and nocebo effects is highly relevant. This experimental study tested effects of a brief progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) exercise, designed to alter psychobiological stress parameters, on the magnitude of placebo and nocebo effects in a standardized psychosocial treatment context. In 120 healthy volunteers (60 men, 60 women), pain expectation, pain intensity, and pain unpleasantness in response to individually-calibrated rectal distensions were measured with visual analog scales during a baseline. Participants were then randomized to exercise PMR (relaxation group: N = 60) or a simple task (control group: N = 60), prior to receiving positive (placebo), negative (nocebo) or neutral suggestions regarding an intravenous administration that was in reality saline in all groups. Identical distensions were repeated (test). State anxiety, salivary cortisol, heart rate, and blood pressure were assessed repeatedly. Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance, planned Bonferroni-corrected group comparisons, as well as exploratory correlational and mediation analyses. Treatment suggestions induced group-specific changes in pain expectation, with significantly reduced expectation in placebo and increased expectation in nocebo groups. PMR had no discernable effect on pain expectation, state anxiety or cortisol, but led to significantly lower heart rate and systolic blood pressure. Relaxation significantly interacted with positive treatment suggestions, which only induced placebo analgesia in relaxed participants. No effects of negative suggestions were found in planned group comparisons, irrespective of relaxation. Exploratory correlation and mediation analyses revealed that pain expectation was a mediator to explain the association between treatment suggestions and pain-related outcomes. Clearly, visceral pain modulation is complex and involves many cognitive, emotional, and possibly neurobiological factors that remain to be fully understood. Our findings suggest that a brief relaxation exercise may facilitate the induction of placebo analgesia by positive when compared to neutral treatment suggestions. They underscore the contribution of relaxation and stress as psychobiological states within the psychosocial treatment context-factors which clearly deserve more attention in translational studies aiming to maximize positive expectancy effects in clinical settings.

Impact of patient information leaflets on pain medication intake behavior: a pilot study

Negative wording in package information leaflets of pain medication is associated with a tendency to evoke negative emotions and lower willing to take medication.

Introduction:

Patient information leaflets on pain medication primarily list side effects while positive effects and action mechanisms remain underrepresented. Nocebo research has shown that negative instructions can lower analgesic effects.

Objectives:

Research on information leaflets and their influence on mood, memory of side effects, and intake behavior of healthy participants is needed.

Methods:

To determine the ratio of positive to negative phrases, 18 information leaflets of common, over-the-market analgesics were examined of which 1 was selected. In a randomized, controlled study design, 18 healthy participants read this leaflet while 18 control group participants read a matched, neutral leaflet of an electrical device. Collected data concerned the recall of positive and negative contents, mood, anxiety, and the willingness to buy and take the drug.

Results:

All examined leaflets listed significantly more side effects than positive effects (t₁₇ = 5.82, P < 0.01). After reading the analgesic leaflet, participants showed a trend towards more negative mood (F_1,34 = 3.78, P = 0.06, η_p² = 0.1), a lower intention to buy [χ² (1, n = 36) = 12.5, P < 0.01], a higher unwillingness to take the medication [χ² (1, n = 36) = 7.2, P < 0.01], and even a greater recall for side effects than positive effects (t₁₇ = 7.47, P < 0.01).

Conclusion:

Reading the patient information leaflets can increase fear and lower the intention to buy and the willingness to take a pain medication.