Are Blue Pills Better Than Green? How Treatment Features Modulate Placebo Effects

Working with patients' treatment expectations - what we can learn from homeopathy

The usual homeopathic remedy, "globules," does not contain any pharmacologically active ingredient. However, many patients and practitioners report beneficial effects of homeopathic treatment on various health outcomes. Experimental and clinical research of the last two decades analyzing the underlying mechanisms of the placebo effect could explain this phenomenon, with patients' treatment expectations as the predominant mechanism. Treatment expectations can be optimized through various factors, such as prior information, communication, and treatment context. This narrative review analyses how homeopathy successfully utilizes these factors. Subsequently, it is discussed what evidence-based medicine could learn from homeopathic practice to optimize treatment expectations (e.g., using an empathic, patient-centered communication style, deliberately selecting objects in practice rooms, or using clear treatment rituals and salient contextual stimuli) and thereby treatment effectiveness. Homeopathic remedy does not work beyond the placebo effect but is recommended or prescribed as an active treatment by those who believe in it. Thus, practitioners need to understand the manner in which homeopathy (as an example of inert treatment) works and are advised to reintegrate its underlying effective placebo mechanisms into evidence-based medicine. This promises to increase treatment efficacy, tolerability, satisfaction, and compliance with evidence-based treatments, and addresses the desires patients are trying to satisfy in homeopathy in an ethical, fully informed way that is grounded in evidence-based medicine.

A meta-analysis of the placebo response in vitiligo: Causes and consequences for the interpretation of clinical trials

The current understanding of the placebo response in vitiligo is limited. Nonetheless, it is difficult to compare the outcomes of vitiligo trials if the repigmentation rates in placebo patients vary significantly. We conducted a meta-analysis of the placebo response in vitiligo trials. Overall, repigmentation rates in patients receiving placebo were 22%, ranging substantially from 0 to 60%. Repigmentation (>25%) was still relatively common for placebo (9.35%), but fell to 5% when >50% improvement was analyzed. Higher frequencies of placebo responses correlated with more repigmentation in the intervention groups. Facial vitiligo and sunlight exposure was linked to higher placebo responses. Roughly estimating the amount of improvement using quartiles (0-25, 25%-50%, 50%-75%, 75%-100% repigmentation) resulted in higher placebo rates compared to other assessment methods. In clinical studies with older patients, the ratio of placebo reactions to treatment responses was higher. This is likely because clinical trials with older patients reported less repigmentation after treatment than studies with younger patients. The percentual difference in affected body surface area during the study period ranged from 6.2% worsening to 17.6% improvement in the placebo groups. This high variability in placebo responses illustrates the need for standardized outcome measures and more head-to-head trials in vitiligo.

How Do Expectations Modulate Pain? A Motivational Perspective

Expectations can profoundly modulate pain experience, during which the periaqueductal gray (PAG) plays a pivotal role. In this article, we focus on motivationally evoked neural activations in cortical and brainstem regions both before and during stimulus administration, as has been demonstrated by experimental studies on pain-modulatory effects of expectations, in the hope of unraveling how the PAG is involved in descending and ascending nociceptive processes. This motivational perspective on expectancy effects on the perception of noxious stimuli sheds new light on psychological and neuronal substrates of pain and its modulation, thus having important research and clinical implications.

Replication crisis and placebo studies: rebooting the bioethical debate

A growing body of cross-cultural survey research shows high percentages of clinicians report using placebos in clinical settings. One motivation for clinicians using placebos is to help patients by capitalising on the placebo effect's reported health benefits. This is not surprising, given that placebo studies are burgeoning, with increasing calls by researchers to ethically harness placebo effects among patients. These calls propose placebos/placebo effects offer clinically significant benefits to patients. In this paper, we argue many findings in this highly cited and 'hot' field have not been independently replicated. Evaluating the ethicality of placebo use in clinical practice involves first understanding whether placebos are efficacious clinically. Therefore, it is crucial to consider placebo research in the context of the replication crisis and what can be learnt to advance evidence-based knowledge of placebos/placebo effects and their clinical relevance (or lack thereof). In doing so, our goal in this paper is to motivate both increased awareness of replication issues and to help pave the way for advances in scientific research in the field of placebo studies to better inform ethical evidence-based practice. We argue that, only by developing a rigorous evidence base can we better understand how, if at all, placebos/placebo effects can be harnessed ethically in clinical settings.

The impact of pharmaceutical form and simulated side effects in an open-label-placebo RCT for improving psychological distress in highly stressed students

Open-label placebo (OLP) may be utilized to reduce psychological distress. Yet, potential contextual effects have not been explored. We investigated the impact of pharmaceutical form and the simulation of side effects in a parallel group RCT (DRKS00030987). A sample of 177 highly stressed university students at risk of depression were randomly assigned by computer generated tables to a 1-week intervention with active or passive OLP nasal spray or passive OLP capsule or a no-treatment control group. After the intervention, groups differed significantly in depressive symptoms but not regarding other outcomes of psychological distress (stress, anxiety, sleep quality, somatization), well-being or treatment expectation. OLP groups benefitted significantly more compared to the no-treatment control group (d = .40), OLP nasal spray groups significantly more than the OLP capsule group (d = .40) and the active OLP group significantly more than the passive OLP groups (d = .42). Interestingly, before intervention, most participants, regardless of group assignment, believed that the OLP capsule would be most beneficial. The effectiveness of OLP treatments seems to be highly influenced by the symptom focus conveyed by the OLP rationale. Moreover, pharmaceutical form and simulation of side effects may modulate efficacy, while explicit treatment expectation seems to play a minor role.

Association between personality traits and placebo effects: a preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Placebo effects are ubiquitous yet highly variable between individuals and therefore strongly affect clinical trial outcomes such as pain relief. It is unclear whether dispositional psychological traits influence responsiveness to placebo. This preregistered meta-analysis and systematic review synthesized the literature investigating the association between personality traits and placebo effects. Based on 21 studies with 798 participants, we performed formal meta-analyses for 10 different personality traits, including behavioral inhibition, fun seeking, goal-drive persistence, reward responsiveness, empathic concern, empathic fantasy, perspective-taking, personal distress, optimism, and anxiety. We did not find evidence of associations between any of these traits and magnitude of placebo effects, which was supported by equivalence tests. Furthermore, we did not find evidence for moderating factors such as placebo manipulation type (conditioning or nonconditioning) or condition (pain or nonpain). These findings challenge the notion that personality influences responsiveness to placebos and contradict its utility for identifying placebo "responders" and "nonresponders."

[Placebo effects in analgesia : Influence of expectations on the efficacy and tolerability of analgesic treatment]

Expectations of patients influence the perception and neuronal processing of acute and chronic pain and modulate the effectiveness of analgesic treatment. The expectation of treatment is not only the most important determinant of placebo analgesia. Expectations of treatment also influence the efficacy and tolerability of "active" pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of pain. Recent insights into the psychological and neurobiological mechanisms underlying the clinically relevant effects of treatment expectations enable and call for the systematic integration and modulation of treatment expectations into analgesic treatment concepts. Such a strategy promises to optimize analgesic treatment and to prevent or reduce the burden of unwanted side effects and the misuse of analgesics, particularly of opioids. This review highlights the current concepts, recent achievements and also challenges and key open research questions.

Open-Label Placebo Effects on Psychological and Physical Well-Being: A Conceptual Replication Study

Background

Contrary to traditional placebos, open-label placebos (OLP) abstain from deception, i.e., participants are openly informed to receive an inert substance. Studies in clinical and healthy samples evidence the efficacy of OLPs. This study aims to conceptually replicate and expand findings of a recent OLP study in healthy participants while implementing a within-subject design and daily instead of retrospective assessments. Additionally, the effect of a brand name on the medicine container is tested and possible predictors of the OLP effects are explored.

Method

Healthy participants (N = 75) received OLP and no placebo for 5 days each (randomized sequence) and answered daily questionnaires on sleep quality, bodily symptoms, mental well-being, and psychological distress. The medicine container of half the participants had a brand name, the remaining did not. Different personality traits and situational factors were assessed.

Results

Mental and physical well-being did not differ between OLP and control phase, i.e., overall, no OLP effect emerged. Contrast analysis indicated that an OLP effect emerged for sleep quality and psychological distress when no brand name was present. Further, an OLP effect emerged in persons with higher expectations for bodily symptoms (r = .23, p = .046) and psychological distress (r = .24, p = .037).

Conclusions

Methodological differences to the original study are discussed as an explanation for the failure to induce overall OLP effects. Future studies should continue to replicate previous findings and determine the exact conditions of successful implementation of OLP effects in healthy as well as clinical samples.

Short- and long-term effects of conventional spinal cord stimulation on chronic pain and health perceptions: A longitudinal controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness and long-term outcomes of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) are not fully established, especially considering that data from patients who withdrew from the trial are rarely analysed, which may lead to overestimation of SCS efficacy. We evaluated short- and long-term effects of SCS on chronic pain and perceived health, beyond natural variability in these outcomes.

METHODS

In a prospective design, 176 chronic pain patients referred to SCS were evaluated five times (baseline; retest ~6 weeks later; post-SCS trial; 8 and 28 weeks post-permanent implantation). Patients whose SCS trial failed (Temp group) were followed up and compared to those who underwent permanent SCS (Perm group).

RESULTS

Analyses revealed a non-linear (U-shaped) trend significantly different between the two groups. In the Perm group, a significant improvement occurred post-SCS implantation in pain severity, pain interference, health-related quality of life and self-rated health, which was followed by gradual worsening and return to baseline values at end of follow-up. In the Temp group, only minor changes occurred in these outcomes over time. On average, baseline and end of follow-up values in the Perm and Temp groups were similar: ~40% in each group exhibited an increase in pain severity over time and 38% and 33%, respectively, exhibited reductions in pain severity over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the greatest improvement in the outcome measures occurred from baseline to post-SCS trial (T1-T3) followed by a gradual decline in the effect, it appears that SCS may not be effective for the majority of chronic pain patients.

SIGNIFICANCE

This longitudinal study evaluated short and long term effects of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) on chronic pain outcome measures, beyond their natural variation in time. Despite significant short term improvements, by the end of the seven months' follow-up, the outcomes in the treatment group (people who received the permanent implantation) were similar to those of the control group (people whose SCS trial failed and did not continue to permanent implantation) suggesting SCS may not be cost-effective for chronic pain patients.

Placebo: a brief updated review

Our aims were to provide updated information on placebo/nocebo effect and the potential use of placebo in clinical practice. This article can only provide a rough overview on the placebo and nocebo effect and is intended to serve as a starting point for the reader to go deeper into the corresponding literature. The placebo effect has been observed in multiple medical conditions, after oral administration, with manual therapies as well as with surgery and invasive procedures. The use of placebo in clinical trials is fundamental, although the ethics of its use is under discussion. The placebo may behave like a drug from the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic point of view and can also be associated with adverse events (nocebo effect). Placebo can modify treatment by increasing or decreasing the effects of drugs. The factors associated with the occurrence of placebo effect are multiple, but in addition to those that depend on the placebo itself, the doctor-patient relationship would be the most important. As a result of findings that were published in the last two decades, the psycho-neurobiological basis of placebo is becoming better understood, although further studies are needed. In conclusion, the placebo effect in the clinic exhibits weak to moderate intensity. Placebo, in addition to its use in the clinical trial, should be considered another therapeutic remedy either as stand alone or in association with treatment, and could be useful in certain circumstances. The use of placebo should be regulated by the European health authorities through a guide in clinical practice that will improve patient care.

Patients' Expectancies to Acupuncture: A Systematic Review

Objective: This systematic review aimed to document and describe how and when to assess patients' expectancies to acupuncture and the relationship between patients' expectancies and clinical effects. Materials and Methods: Three English databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE, and four Chinese databases, including the Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database, Chinese Journal Full-text Database, Chinese Scientific Journal Full-text Database, and Wanfang Database, were searched up to February 2020. Studies involving patients' expectancies to acupuncture were included. Based on the detailed situations of patients' expectancies, we made a standardized data extraction table that included the basic information of articles, study design details, and measurement of expectations. Based on the data, a descriptive analysis was performed, covering the characteristics of studies, measuring methods of expectations and the relationship between patients' expectancies and clinical effects. Methodology quality assessment was also performed by the risk of bias and the standards for reporting interventions in controlled trials of acupuncture. Results: There were 61 randomized controlled trials included in our analysis. The number of articles increased gradually over time and grew significantly after 2008. About half of trials focused on pain alleviation. Expectancies were measured before the treatment (N = 43), after the treatment (N = 3), and both before and after the treatment (N = 10), and five studies did not mention it. The measurement of expectancies used self-made questionnaires or scales (N = 27), the Acupuncture Expectations Scale (N = 6), and other scales (N = 11), while 17 studies did not describe what scale they used. The used questionnaires or scales mostly tried to ascertain the strength of confidence that acupuncture would help. Patients' expectancies and clinical effects were relevant in 19 studies, irrelevant in 21 studies, and were not mentioned in 21 studies. Conclusions: Patients' expectations to acupuncture have received increasing attention in recent years, but there is still no recognized measurement time and methods. It is critical to develop questions and answers regarding patients' expectations with better discrimination and reliability to accurately assess expectations and to explore the relationship between patients' expectations and acupuncture outcomes in future trials.

What Should Clinicians Tell Patients about Placebo and Nocebo Effects? Practical Considerations Based on Expert Consensus

INTRODUCTION

Clinical and laboratory studies demonstrate that placebo and nocebo effects influence various symptoms and conditions after the administration of both inert and active treatments.

OBJECTIVE

There is an increasing need for up-to-date recommendations on how to inform patients about placebo and nocebo effects in clinical practice and train clinicians how to disclose this information.

METHODS

Based on previous clinical recommendations concerning placebo and nocebo effects, a 3-step, invitation-only Delphi study was conducted among an interdisciplinary group of internationally recognized experts. The study consisted of open- and closed-ended survey questions followed by a final expert meeting. The surveys were subdivided into 3 parts: (1) informing patients about placebo effects, (2) informing patients about nocebo effects, and (3) training clinicians how to communicate this information to the patients.

RESULTS

There was consensus that communicating general information about placebo and nocebo effects to patients (e.g., explaining their role in treatment) could be beneficial, but that such information needs to be adjusted to match the specific clinical context (e.g., condition and treatment). Experts also agreed that training clinicians to communicate about placebo and nocebo effects should be a regular and integrated part of medical education that makes use of multiple formats, including face-to-face and online modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

The current 3-step Delphi study provides consensus-based recommendations and practical considerations for disclosures about placebo and nocebo effects in clinical practice. Future research is needed on how to optimally tailor information to specific clinical conditions and patients' needs, and on developing standardized disclosure training modules for clinicians.

Placebo and Side Effects Confound Clinical Trials on New Antitussives

This review discusses how the placebo effect related to treatment side effects may confound clinical trials on antitussives and specifically looks at the implications for trials on ATP antagonists. These new antitussives have distinctive side effects on the sensation of taste, and investigators have expressed concerns that this may unblind the clinical trials. Blinding is an essential component of trial design, but the degree of blinding in trials is rarely assessed. The assumptions of additivity and balance in clinical trials are discussed as important factors that allow assessment of the pharmacological activity of an antitussive. How side effects unbalance a clinical trial by amplifying the placebo effect of active treatments is discussed. The point is made that unblinding of trials invalidates any assessment of efficacy but that there is little interest or discussion about this fundamental aspect of trials. Proposals are discussed which may improve the blinding of trials and control placebo effects by changes to participant information, trial design, patient selection and use of active placebos. The issue of unblinding of clinical trials is not a new issue, but if real progress is to be made in developing new antitussives, then it is an issue that needs to be urgently addressed.

Effects of Patients' Expectation in Dermatology: Evidence from Experimental and Clinical Placebo Studies and Implications for Dermatologic Practice and Research

Patients' expectations towards the benefit of a treatment are key determinants of placebo responses and can affect the development and course of medical conditions and the efficacy and tolerability of active medical treatment. The mechanisms mediating these placebo and nocebo effects have been best described in the field of experimental pain and placebo analgesia. However, also in dermatology experimental and clinical studies demonstrate that various skin diseases such as inflammatory dermatoses and allergic reactions can be modulated by patients' expectations. Dermatologists should consider the important modulatory role of patients' expectations on the efficacy and tolerability of specific treatments and the key role of verbal information, patients' prior treatment experiences (associative learning), and the quality and quantity of doctor-patient communication in shaping treatment expectation. As a consequence, techniques aiming at maximizing patients' expectation effects should be implemented into daily clinical routine. By contrast, in clinical studies expectation effects should be maximally controlled and harmonized to improve the "assay sensitivity" to detect new compounds. Further translational studies, also in dermatoses that have not been investigated yet, are needed to better characterize the mechanisms underlying patients' expectation and to gain further insights into potential clinical implications of these effects in dermatologic conditions. Therefore, in this review, we provide a brief overview on the concept of expectation effects on treatment outcome in general, summarize what is already known about this topic for dermatologic diseases, and finally present the relevance of this topic in clinical dermatology.

Rethinking Clinical Trials and Personalized Medicine with Placebogenomics and Placebo Dose

Pharmacogenomics, nutrigenomics, vaccinomics, and the nascent field of plant omics are examples of variability science. They are embedded within an overarching framework of personalized medicine. Across these public health specialties, the significance and biology of the placebo response have been historically neglected. A placebo is any substance such as a sugar pill administered in the guise of medication, but one that does not have pharmacological activity. Placebos do have clinical effects, however, that can be substantive in magnitude and vary markedly from person-to-person depending, for example, on the type of disease, symptoms, or clinical trial design. Research over the past several decades attests to a genuine neurobiological basis for placebo effects. All drugs have placebo components that contribute to their overall treatment effect. Placebos are used in clinical trials as control groups to ascertain the net pharmacological effect of a drug candidate. Not only less well known but also relevant to rational therapeutics and personalized medicine is the nocebo. A nocebo effect occurs when an inert substance is administered in a context that induces negative expectations, worsening patients' symptoms. With the COVID-19 pandemic, there are high public expectations for new vaccines and medicines to end the contagion, while at the same time antiscience, post-truth, and antivaccine movements are worrisomely on the rise. These social movements, changes in public health cultures, and conditioned behavioral responses can trigger both placebo and nocebo effects. Hence, in clinical trials, forecasting and explaining placebo and nocebo variability are more important than ever for robust science and personalized health care. Against this overarching context, this article provides (1) a brief history of placebo and (2) a discussion on biology, mechanisms, and variability of placebo effects, and (3) discusses three emerging new concepts: placebogenomics, nocebogenomics, and augmented placebo, that is, the notion of a "placebo dose." We conclude with a roadmap for placebogenomics, its synergies with the nascent field of social pharmacology, and the ways in which a new taxonomy of drug and placebo variability can be anticipated in the next decade.

[Placebo effects in pain therapy]

In the past few decades, research on pain and placebo analgesia has gained importance both scientifically and clinically. In this article, the current findings and focus of research as well as the significance of placebo research for assessing the effectiveness of pain medication are illustrated. The underlying mechanisms of placebo analgesia not only have implications for theoretical models but also offer clinically relevant guidelines for everyday interventions in pain treatment. However, many placebo phenomena are not fully understood and have to be investigated further in order to exploit the full potential of placebo effects. Interindividual differences and their inclusion in treatment will play a major role in this aspect.

Maximizing placebo response in neurological clinical practice

The placebo effect is a widely recognized phenomenon in clinical research, with a negative perception that it could hide the "true" drug effect. In clinical care its positive potential to increase known drug effects has been neglected for too long. The placebo and nocebo responses have been described in many neurologic disorders such as Parkinson's, Huntington's and Alzheimer's diseases, restless leg syndrome, tics, essential tremor, dystonia, functional movement disorders, neuropathic pain, headaches, migraine, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, multiple sclerosis and epilepsy. Knowledge regarding placebo mechanisms and their consequences on clinical outcome have greatly improved over the last two decades. This evolution has led to reconsiderations of the importance of placebo response in the clinic and has given several clues on how to improve it in daily practice. In this chapter, we first illustrate "why," e.g. the reasons (relevance to clinical practice, help in differential diagnosis/treatment of psychogenic movements, clinical impact, proven neurobiological grounds, health economic potential), and "how," e.g. the means (increase patients' knowledge, increase learning, improve patient-doctor relationship, increase Hawthorne effect, increase positive/decrease negative expectations (the Rosenthal effect), personalize placebo response), the placebo should be maximized (and nocebo avoided) in neurological clinical practice. Future studies regarding more specific neurobiological mechanisms will allow a finer tuning of placebo response in clinical practice. The use of placebo in clinical practice raises ethical issues, and a recent expert consensus regarding placebo use in the clinic is a first step to future guidelines necessary to this field.

Medical practice and placebo response: an inseparable bond?

The history of medicine and the history of placebo are closely intertwined. To understand placebo and its effects this article gives a brief overview about its history, the possible mechanisms of action and its counterpart, nocebo.

The Catholic Church used placebo around the sixteenth century for the separation from real and incorrect exorcisms, but it needed Henry Beecher during World War II to quantify the placebo effect as control arm in well-designed studies.

Until today the different mechanisms of action of placebo remain poorly researched. Understanding them would allow its effect to be modulated to better serve in research and clinical settings. Expectation, psychosocial context and conditioning play a significant role in the effect size and amplitude.

The counterpart, nocebo, is even less investigated, even it is commonly observed as adverse effects during medical treatments.

Conclusion: Placebo and nocebo are both underestimated and underresearched in their value. Through further investigation doctors could strengthen the placebo response and prevent adverse effects to help their patients at low cost. These techniques would benefit the patient-doctor relationship, which is the alter of a trust-based successful therapy.

The Role of Tactile Stimulation for Expectation, Perceived Treatment Assignment and the Placebo Effect in an Experimental Nausea Paradigm

Introduction

Tactile stimulation during a placebo treatment could enhance its credibility and thereby boost positive treatment expectations and the placebo effect. This experimental study aimed to investigate the interplay between tactile stimulation, expectation, and treatment credibility for the placebo effect in nausea.

Methods

Ninety healthy participants were exposed to a 20-min vection stimulus on two separate days and were randomly allocated to one of three groups on the second day after the baseline period: Placebo transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) with tactile stimulation (n = 30), placebo TENS without tactile stimulation (n = 30), or no intervention (n = 30). Placebo TENS was performed for 20 min at a dummy acupuncture point on both forearms. Expected and perceived nausea severity and further symptoms of motion sickness were assessed at baseline and during the evaluation period. At the end of the experiment, participants in the placebo groups guessed whether they had received active or placebo treatment.

Results

Expected nausea decreased significantly more in the placebo groups as compared to the no treatment control group (interaction day × group, F = 6.60, p = 0.003, partial η² = 0.20), with equal reductions in the two placebo groups (p = 1.0). Reduced expectation went along with a significant placebo effect on nausea (interaction day × group, F = 22.2, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.35) with no difference between the two placebo groups (p = 1.0). Twenty-three out of 29 participants in the tactile placebo group (79%) but only 14 out of 30 participants (47%) in the non-tactile placebo group believed that they had received the active intervention (p = 0.015). Bang’s blinding index (BI) indicated random guessing in the non-tactile placebo group (BI = 0; 95% CI, −0.35 to 0.35) and non-random guessing in the direction of an “opposite guess” in the tactile placebo group (BI = −0.52; 95% CI, −0.81 to −0.22).

Conclusion

Tactile stimulation during placebo TENS did not further enhance positive treatment expectations and the placebo effect in nausea but increased the credibility of the intervention. Further trials should investigate the interaction between perceived treatment assignment, expectation, and the placebo effect during the course of a trial.