Q-No: a questionnaire to predict nocebo in outpatients seeking neurological consultation

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.

Prediction and associated factors of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs efficacy in migraine treatment

Background: The selection strategy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for migraine is hard to judge whether it is effective, leading to unnecessary exposure to insufficient or lengthy treatment trials. The goal of the study was to investigate potential predictors of NSAIDs efficacy in migraine therapy and to explore their influence on efficacy. Methods: 610 migraine patients were recruited and assigned into responders and non-responders. Potential predictors among demographic and clinical characteristics for NSAIDs efficacy were extracted using multivariable logistic regression (LR) analysis, and were applied to construct prediction models via machine learning (ML) algorithms. Finally, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests were used to examine the impact of each predictor on drug efficacy. Results: Multivariate LR analysis revealed migraine-related (disease duration, headache intensity and frequency) and psychiatric (anxiety, depression and sleep disorder) characteristics were predictive of NSAIDs efficacy. The accuracies of ML models using support vector machine, decision tree and multilayer perceptron were 0.712, 0.741, and 0.715, respectively. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test showed that, for variables with homogeneity of odds ratio, disease duration, frequency, anxiety, and depression and sleep disorder were associated with decreased likelihood of response to all NSAIDs. However, the variabilities in the efficacy of acetaminophen and celecoxib between patients with mild and severe headache intensity were not confirmed. Conclusion: Migraine-related and psychiatric parameters play a critical role in predicting the outcomes of acute migraine treatment. These models based on predictors could optimize drug selection and improve benefits from the start of treatment.

COVID-19 vaccine safety and nocebo-prone associated hesitancy in patients with systemic rheumatic diseases: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To describe the rate and type of adverse effects (AEs) and the frequency of disease flares after COVID-19 vaccination and to assess the reasons for vaccination hesitancy (non-vaccination) in SRD patients.

METHODS

Telephone interviews were conducted of SRD patients consecutively enrolled (15/06/2021-1/7/2021). Participants were asked about the type of AEs and disease flare after vaccination. Reasons for vaccination hesitancy were recorded. Univariate and mutivariable analyses examined associations of demographic, clinical and other features, with occurrence of AEs, disease flare and non-vaccination. For the latter, association with negative vaccination behaviour (not influenza vaccinated for the last 2 years) and nocebo-prone behaviour (denoting AEs attributed to negative expectations [Q-No questionnaire]) was also tested.

RESULTS

561 out of 580 contacted patients were included in the study. 441/561 (78.6%) patients were vaccinated [90% (Pfizer, Moderna), 10% (Astra-Zeneca)]. AEs were reported by 148/441 (33.6%), with rates being comparable between the three vaccines. AEs were more common in females and those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [OR, 95% CI; females: 2.23 (1.30-3.83); COPD: 3.31 (1.24-8.83)]. Disease flare was reported in 9/441 (2%) patients. For those unvaccinated, fear that the vaccine would be harmful (53.3%), could cause disease flare (24.2%) and/or could cause thrombosis (21.7%) were the main reasons to do so. Multivariable analysis identified as independent variables for non-vaccination: nocebo-prone behaviour (OR; 95% CI, 3.88; 1.76-8.55), negative vaccination behaviour (6.56; 3.21-13.42) and previous COVID-19 infection (2.83; 1.13-7.05). Higher educational status was protective (0.49; 0.26-0.92).

CONCLUSION

No new safety signals for COVID-19 vaccination were observed. Vaccination campaign should target SRD patients with nocebo-prone and negative influenza vaccination behaviour.

Nocebo-Prone Behavior Associated with SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Hesitancy in Healthcare Workers

Among healthcare workers (HCWs), SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy may be linked to a higher susceptibility to nocebo effects, i.e., adverse events (AEs) experienced after medical treatments due to negative expectations. To investigate this hypothesis a cross-sectional survey was performed with a self-completed questionnaire that included a tool (Q-No) for the identification of nocebo-prone individuals. A total of 1309 HCWs (67.2% women; 43.4% physicians; 28.4% nurses; 11.5% administrative staff; 16.6% other personnel) completed the questionnaires, among whom 237 (18.1%) had declined vaccination. Q-No scores were ≥15 in 325 participants (24.8%) suggesting nocebo-prone behavior. In a multivariate logistic regression model with Q-No score, age, gender, and occupation as independent variables, estimated odds ratios (ORs) of vaccination were 0.43 (i.e., less likely, p < 0.001) in participants with Q-No score ≥ 15 vs. Q-No score < 15, 0.58 in females vs. males (p = 0.013), and 4.7 (i.e., more likely) in physicians vs. other HCWs (p < 0.001), independent of age, which was not significantly associated with OR of vaccination. At least one adverse effect (AE) was reported by 67.5% of vaccinees, mostly local pain and flu-like symptoms. In a multivariate logistic regression model, with Q-No score, age, gender, and occupation as independent variables, estimated ORs of AE reporting were 2.0 in females vs. males (p < 0.001) and 1.47 in physicians vs. other HCWs (p = 0.017) independently of age and Q-No score, which were not significantly associated with OR of AE. These findings suggest that nocebo-prone behavior in HCWs is associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination hesitancy indicating a potential benefit of a campaign focused on nocebo-prone people.

Pain experience and mood disorders during the lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States: an opportunistic study

INTRODUCTION

The unknown and uncontrollable situation of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may have triggered changes in pain, anxiety, and depression along with a perception of nonspecific COVID-19 symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

We determined how anxiety, depression, and pain outcomes varied during the "Stay-at-Home" order compared with the prepandemic period and whether nonspecific COVID-19 symptoms would occur.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey to opportunistically reassess clinical anxiety, depression, pain intensity, and pain interference while controlling for somatic symptom severity during the prepandemic and Stay-at-Home order period. During the Stay-at-Home period, anxiety, depression, pain intensity, and pain interference were reassessed. Coping strategies were assessed as a critical factor influencing pain behaviors. In addition, we explored the occurrence of nonspecific COVID-19 symptoms with an ad hoc survey referencing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publicly available COVID-19 symptoms.

RESULTS

We observed a significant increase in depression and anxiety levels during the Stay-at-Home period. Coping strategy changes (eg, increased exercise) were linked to lower pain severity and interference which improved overall. Participants who self-reported nonspecific COVID-19 symptoms had higher prepandemic depression. Among the 72 participants not diagnosed with COVID-19, 70.8% of the participants experienced symptoms resembling those associated with COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

We suggest the parallel between pain outcome improvement and worsening anxiety and depression during the Stay-at-Home order might reflect a shift in symptoms, indicating that those patients with underlying mood disorders may require more help than they did before the pandemic.

Erenumab for headaches in idiopathic intracranial hypertension: A prospective open-label evaluation

Objective

To determine the effectiveness of erenumab in treating headaches in idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) in whom papilledema had resolved.

Background

Disability in IIH is predominantly driven by debilitating headaches with no evidence for the use of preventative therapies. Headache therapy in IIH is an urgent unmet need.

Methods

A prospective, open‐label study in the United Kingdom was conducted. Adult females with confirmed diagnosis of IIH now in ocular remission (papilledema resolved) with chronic headaches (≥15 days a month) and failure of ≥3 preventative medications received erenumab 4‐weekly (assessments were 3‐monthly). The primary end point was change in monthly moderate/severe headache days (MmsHD) from baseline (30‐day pretreatment period) compared to 12 months.

Results

Fifty‐five patients, mean (SD) age 35.3 (9) years and mean duration of headaches 10.4 (8.4) years with 3.7 (0.9) preventative treatment failures, were enrolled. Mean baseline MmsHD was 16.1 (4.7) and total monthly headache days (MHD) was (29) 2.3. MmsHD reduced substantially at 12 months by mean (SD) [95% CI] 10.8 (4.0) [9.5, 11.9], p < 0.001 and MHD reduced by 13.0 (9.5) [10.2, 15.7], p < 0.001. Crystal clear days (days without any head pain) increased by 13.1 (9.5) [9.6, 15.3], p < 0.001, headache severity (scale 0–10) fell by 1.3 (1.7) [0.9, 1.9], p < 0.001, and monthly analgesic days reduced by 4.3 (9.2) [1.6, 6.9], p = 0.002. All these measures had improved significantly by 3 months, with a consistent significant response to 12 months. Headache impact test‐6 score and quality of life Short Form‐36 Health Survey significantly improved at 12 months. Sensitivity analysis revealed similar results for patients with and without a prior migraine diagnosis (28/55 (52%) patients) or those with or without medication overuse (27/55 (48%) patients).

Conclusions

This study provides evidence for the effectiveness of erenumab to treat headaches in IIH patients with resolution of papilledema. It provides mechanistic insights suggesting that calcitonin gene‐related peptide is likely a modulator driving headache and a useful therapeutic target.

Nocebo-Prone Behaviour in Patients with Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases during the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic is associated with emotional distress and significant disruptions in health-care services. These are key players in the development of nocebo phenomena. We aimed to investigate nocebo-prone behaviour in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD) amid the COVID-19 pandemic-associated lockdown.

METHODS

Consecutive patients were telephone-interviewed during the COVID-19 pandemic in Greece. Clinical and socioeconomic characteristics (eg, level of education) were recorded. For nocebo behaviour, a four-item validated questionnaire (Q-No, cut-off score>15), was used. Results were compared with pre-COVID-19 Q-No scores collected from patients followed-up in our department.

RESULTS

Nocebo behaviour was detected in 51/500 (10.2%) individuals. In patients with nocebo behaviour, use of anti-hypertensives was less common (17.6% vs 31.8%, p=0.04), but a higher level of education was more common (58.8% vs 35.9%, p=0.002), compared with patients with Q-No score ≤15; the latter retained statistical significance in multivariate regression analysis (p=0.009, OR [95%CI]: 2.29, [1.23-4.25]). Total Q-No scores were higher in the COVID-19-period compared to the pre-COVID-19 era [median (range); 12 (4-20) vs 11 (4-20), p=0.02]. Among 78 patients with available Q-No questionnaires in the pre-COVID-19 era, 11 (14.1%) displayed nocebo behaviour, which increased to 16 (20.5%) amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Interim development of nocebo behaviour was also associated with higher educational level (p=0.049, OR: 3.65, 95%CI: 1.005-13.268).

CONCLUSION

A considerable proportion of ARD patients manifested nocebo-prone behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was more common among those with high educational level.

Nocebo phenomena may be enhanced in aging: Implications for clinical practice

Nocebo effects, denoting unfavourable outcomes after a medical intervention because of negative expectations rather than a direct pharmacologic action, are an important cause of dropout from clinical trials and non-adherence to medication, and may be especially pertinent for older adults. Several characteristics of aging individuals and their medical care have a potential to augment nocebo susceptibility, such as depression and anxiety, neurodegenerative diseases and chronic pain states, adverse healthcare experiences, generic drug use, age-related stereotypes, and strained patient-physician communication. Nocebo-related research in older adults is hindered by under-representation in clinical trials, medical complexity of geriatric patients, and lack of validated tools to accurately assess susceptibility and efficacy of preventive efforts.

Nocebo and lessebo effects

The power of placebos is commonly associated with the placebo effect. In contrast, detrimental effects related to the use of a placebo are little studied and less well recognized. This chapter covers the nocebo and lessebo effects defined, respectively, as expectation of harm in the form of adverse events in a placebo arm and reduction of therapeutic benefit due to the uncertainty of being allocated to placebo. The lessebo effect is a more recent concept and has been described only in depression, schizophrenia and Parkinson's disease. The nocebo response was evaluated in many neurological diseases, including epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, restless leg syndrome, among others. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials in these conditions reveal a significant variability of the magnitude of the nocebo response and that factors related to study design, study participants or neurological disease can be associated with a nocebo response, although with the opposing findings across conditions. The knowledge about neurobiological mechanisms of the nocebo effect is poor for neurological diseases, and most of the information has been generated in pain. Functional neuroimaging suggests the existence of a distinct network for the anticipation and the experience of a hyperalgesia nocebo response. Different types of neurotransmitters have been involved, including cholecystokinin, dopamine and opioids. Recognizing the potential impact of nocebo and lessebo effects, mitigating strategies are in development with application to clinical research and clinical practice, such as a contextualized informed consent process, alternative study designs and enhancement of patient-physician communication.

Nocebos in rheumatology: emerging concepts and their implications for clinical practice

Nocebo effects are noxious reactions to therapeutic interventions that occur because of negative expectations of the patient. In the past decade, neurobiological data have revealed specific neural pathways induced by nocebos (that is, interventions that cause nocebo effects), as well as the associated mechanisms and predisposing factors of nocebo effects. Epidemiological data suggest that nocebos can have a notable effect on medication adherence, clinical outcomes and health-care policy. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) indicate that withdrawal of treatment by placebo-arm participants owing to adverse events is common; a proportion of these events could be nocebo effects. Moreover, in large-scale, open-label studies of patients with RMDs who transition from bio-originator to biosimilar therapeutics, biosimilar retention rates were much lower than in previous double-blind switch RCTs. This discrepancy suggests that in addition to the lack of response in some patients because of intrinsic differences between the drugs, nocebos might have an important role in low biosimilar retention, thus increasing the need for awareness and early identification of nocebo effects by rheumatologists and allied health-care professionals.

Nocebo in Biosimilars and Generics in Neurology: A Systematic Review

Background: Nocebo refers to adverse events related to patients’ negative expectations and previous experiences, mediated by several neurobiological pathways within the brain. It is common among neurological patients and affects adherence and treatment outcomes, representing a real clinical challenge.

Methods: We conducted a systematic search based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines in MEDLINE database, using several keywords for studies that can be processed to investigate the magnitude of nocebo in generics and biosimilars used in the most common neurological diseases. The aim was to estimate its size and suggest strategies to minimize its prevalence in clinical trials and practice.

Results: Of a total of 2,606 identified articles, after criteria-based selection, 35 studies were included for analysis. Overall, there was vast heterogeneity across the studies concerning population, study design, and outcomes. Nocebo response could be estimated only in one double-blind randomized trial of generic glatiramer acetate in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis that included a placebo arm. In this trial, no significant differences observed between the three arms (innovator, bioequivalent, and placebo) in favorable and unfavorable outcomes. In the open-label phase of the trial, an increased withdrawal rate was recorded in patients switched from placebo to bioequivalent (8.4%) that may be related to nocebo. In other open-label and real-world studies evaluating biosimilars or generics for brain disorders, a similar indirect nocebo effect is assuming by several investigators. Also, knowledge gaps between health-care providers and patients exist towards generics and biosimilars.

Conclusions: Despite its presence, the true burden of the nocebo response and effect cannot be accurately estimated in existing studies with generics and biosimilars in neurological diseases. Targeted strategies for clinical trials’ design are needed in order to measure the exact nocebo’s size.

Patients' preferences for headache acute and preventive treatment

Background

We aimed to explore patients’ preferences for headache treatments with a self-administered questionnaire including the Q-No questionnaire for nocebo.

Methods

Questionnaires from 514 outpatients naïve to neurostimulation and monoclonal antibodies were collected.

Results

Patients assessed that the efficacy of a treatment is more important than safety or route of administration. They preferred to use an external neurostimulation device for both acute (67.1%) and preventive treatment (62.8%). Most patients preferred to take a pill (86%) than any other drug given parenterally for symptomatic pharmaceutical treatment. For preventive pharmaceutical treatment, most patients preferred to take a pill once per day (52%) compared to an injection either subcutaneously or intravenously each month (9% and 4%), or three months (15% and 11%). 56.6% of all participants scored more than 15 in Q-No questionnaire indicating potential nocebo behaviors that contributed significantly in their choices.

Conclusion

These patient preferences along with efficacy and safety data may help physicians better choose the right treatment for the right person.