The Power of Labeling in Nocebo Effects

The Nocebo Effect

Adverse nocebo responses can cause harm to patients and interfere with treatment adherence and effects in both clinic practice and clinical trials. Nocebo responses refer to negative outcomes to active medical treatments in clinical trials or practice that cannot be explained by the treatment's pharmacologic effects. Negative expectancies and nocebo effects are less known than placebo responses. Nocebo effects can be triggered by verbal suggestions, prior negative experiences, observation of others experiencing negative outcomes, and other contextual and environmental factors. As research advances over the years, mechanistic knowledge is accumulating on the neurobiological mechanisms of nocebo effects. This review summarizes studies on different facets of nocebo effects and responses and discusses clinical implications, ethical considerations, and future directions.

Assessment of Reported Adverse Events After Interchanging Between TNF-α Inhibitor Biosimilars in the WHO Pharmacovigilance Database

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Observational studies have shown that a significant proportion of patients interchanging between tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor biosimilars withdraws from the new treatment because of adverse effects. We aim to analyze adverse events related to interchanging from tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) inhibitor reference products to biosimilars and between biosimilars reported in the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database.

METHODS

We extracted all cases reporting the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities term "Product substitution issue (PT)" for TNF-α inhibitors. Then, we analyzed and categorized all adverse events reported in more than 1% of cases. We compared the adverse events reported according to reporter qualification, type of switch, and type of TNF-α inhibitor using Chi2 tests. We conducted a network analysis coupled with a clustering approach to identify syndromes of co-reported adverse events.

RESULTS

In the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database, 2543 cases and 6807 adverse events related to TNF-α inhibitor interchangeability have been reported up to October 2022. Injection-site reactions were the most reported adverse events with 940 cases (37.0%), followed by modifications in drug effect in 607 cases (23.9%). Musculoskeletal, cutaneous, and gastrointestinal disorders linked to the underlying disease were reported in 505 (20.0%), 145 (5.7%), and 207 (8.1%) cases, respectively. Adverse events non-related to the underlying disease were nonspecific (n = 458, 18.0%), neurologic (n = 224, 8.8%), respiratory (n = 132, 5.2%), and psychological disorders (n = 64, 2.5%). Injection-site reactions and infection-related symptoms (e.g., nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infection, lower respiratory tract infection) were more reported by non-healthcare professionals while adverse events related to reduced clinical efficacy (e.g., drug ineffective, arthralgia, psoriasis) were more reported by healthcare professionals. The proportions of injection-site reactions were higher when switching between biosimilars of the same reference product, but the proportions of adverse events related to reduced clinical efficacy (e.g., psoriasis, arthritis, psoriatic arthropathy) were more reported when switching from a reference product. The main differences in the proportions of reported cases between adalimumab, infliximab, and etanercept were driven by symptoms related to the underlying targeted diseases, except for a higher reporting rate of injection-site pain with adalimumab. Adverse events evocative of hypersensitivity reactions were reported in 192 (7.6%) cases. Most of the network clusters concerned non-specific adverse events or were related to reduced clinical efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis highlights the burden of patient-reported adverse events when interchanging between TNF-α inhibitor biosimilars, notably injection-site reactions, non-specific adverse events, and symptoms related to reduced clinical efficacy. Our study also highlights differences in reporting patterns between patients and healthcare professionals and depending on the type of switch. The results are limited by missing data, the lack of precision of the coded Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms, and by the variability of reporting rate of adverse events. Thus, incidence rates of adverse events cannot be inferred from these results.

Lack of association between generic brittleness and neuropsychiatric measures in patients with epilepsy

PURPOSE

In a prior bioequivalence study, generic brittle (GB) patients with epilepsy who were considered at risk of worsened seizures or drug side effects from switching antiepileptic drug (AED) formulations demonstrated no significant difference in their drug levels when switched between a brand and generic AED. An alternative basis for being GB may relate to having a personality or mindset that predisposes to poor outcomes from a formulation switch. The objective of this study was to explore whether GB patients with epilepsy could be differentiated from not GB patients based on standardized measures of personality, mood, outlook, and beliefs.

METHODS

This was an exploratory, observational, case-control, non-therapeutic study in patients with epilepsy. Patient interviews were conducted, and histories were collected, yielding each patient (n = 148) to be determined as GB or not GB. Eight neuropsychiatry tests were administered to n = 127 of these patients. Tests included Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Personality Inventory 3 (NEO-PI 3), Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R), Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory-89 (QOLIE-89), Adverse Childhood Experiences Score (ACE), Physical Symptoms Questionnaire or Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15), Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), and the Beliefs About Medicines Questionnaire Epilepsy (BMQ-Epilepsy). A total of 23 Chi squared analyses, along with logistical regression, were performed to assess which tests and sub-elements associated with GB status.

RESULTS

None of the neuropsychiatry tests or their sub-elements differentiated GB patients from not GB patients. Results implicate that standardized measures of personality, mood, outlook, and beliefs about their healthcare do not differ between GB and not GB patients with epilepsy, possibly because generic brittleness is caused by factors that neuropsychiatry tests do not measure.

CONCLUSIONS

We hypothesized that being GB may relate to having a personality or mindset that predisposes patients to attributing poor outcomes to a formulation switch. However, findings here in patients with epilepsy did not uncover neuropsychiatric factors that predict which patients were GB and which were not GB.

Placebo-Related Adverse Events in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies are considered to provide the highest quality of interventional evidence. This meta-analysis summarizes the frequencies of adverse events according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) in the placebo arms of 101 such studies in rheumatoid arthritis, including a total of 17,150 patients in the placebo arms and 37,819 patients in the verum arms. Placebo-treated patients reported more than one adverse event in a median of 55.0%, 65.5%, and 72.5% (compared to 72.3% in the verum arms), and a serious adverse event in 2.5%, 5.8%, and 8.6% (compared to 5.9% in the verum arms), with stable doses of corticosteroids, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and biological DMARDs as background therapies, respectively. Odds ratios were comparable between placebo and verum arms for nausea (1.00 with 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86–1.17), for hepatobiliary disorders (1.08 with CI 0.85–1.36), for abnormal hepatic functions (1.09 with CI 0.83–1.44), and general disorders and administration site conditions (1.39 with CI 0.95–2.03). A publication bias has to be assumed for nausea (p = 0.018; Egger’s test), diarrhoea (p = 0.022), and serious infections and infestations (p = 0.009). In conclusion, patients should be aware that “adverse events” may occur even with placebo medication, independent from an additional verum medication added to the background therapy. Further studies are warranted to respect and overcome the psychological and other issues related to these placebo-related “adverse events”.

Pharmacokinetics and Generic Drug Switching: A Regulator's View

There appears to be a mismatch between the assumed therapeutic equivalence of generic drugs, their interchangeability, and reported clinical discomfort following generic drug use and drug switches. In this article, we describe why we are of the opinion that the current regulatory approach to the evaluation of generic drugs based on average bioequivalence is sufficient to expect therapeutic equivalence in the clinical setting. This has often been debated, specifically as adverse drug reactions related to generic drug switches are regularly reported. We agree that clinical discomfort during a bioequivalent drug switch may indeed be caused by different exposures to the active substance. However, this difference in exposure is not a result of the characteristics or quality of generic drugs; it is caused by the pharmacokinetic within-subject variability of the active substance, i.e., the variability on the bioavailability of the active substance, when comparing two occasions of administration of the same drug product, to the same patient. Therefore, reported clinical discomfort following generic drug use and drug switches does not warrant a change in the regulatory approach to the evaluation of the bioequivalence of generic drugs. Switching from a brand-name drug to currently approved generic drugs, or between different generic drugs, will in principle result in comparable exposure, within boundaries determined by the within-subject variability of the pharmacokinetics of the active substance involved.

Understanding Contextual Factors Effects and Their Implications for Italian Physiotherapists: Findings from a National Cross-Sectional Study

An online cross-sectional survey was conducted using Google Docs software. The aim was to understand the management of contextual factors and to identify which are most relevant and which clinicians underestimate. A total of 1250 physiotherapists were chosen from the database of the Manual Therapists group mailing list (GTM-IFOMPT MO) from July to August 2020. A total of 699 responses were received that were considered valid (56%). Participants (40.83%) identified contextual factors (CFs) as "any element, even involuntary, with which the patient interacts during treatment". Physiotherapists individually chose the representation of CF with the "therapeutic relationship" (82.9%), followed by "therapeutic setting" (75.8%). This choice differed between participants belonging to different age groups. Participants favor communication strategies (76.93%). More than half (57.88%) pay attention to patient involvement during the course of care; and in response to the patients' doubts about the use of treatments with limited scientific efficacy, they suggest different medical treatments. The patient's previous clinical experience is not considered significant and does not influence the choice of treatment. Subsequently, however, the participants reported that they stimulate the patients' positive expectations of the success of the clinical outcome (45.27%). Knowledge of contextual factors in physiotherapy appears limited and very heterogeneous. Future research could increase the focus on professional development.

What Physiotherapists Specialized in Orthopedic Manual Therapy Know About Nocebo-Related Effects and Contextual Factors: Findings From a National Survey

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate the knowledge of orthopedic manual therapists (OMTs) regarding context factors (CFs) capable of triggering nocebo effects during the treatment and how this knowledge is related to their socio-demographic features.

Design

A cross-sectional online survey.

Setting

National.

Main Outcome Measures

A 20 items questionnaire composed by open-ended and closed single-choice questions was administered to explore: (a) socio-demographic variables (10 questions); (b) the relation between different CFs and nocebo-related effects (2 questions); and (c) the knowledge of participants about nocebo-related effects and how they managed them in the clinical practice (8 questions).

Participants

1288 OMTs were recruited from the database of the Master in Rehabilitation of Musculoskeletal Disorders (MRDM) of the University of Genova from March to May 2019. Inclusion criteria were: (a) to possess a valid email account; (b) to understand and use as a native language the Italian; (c) to be graduated as OMTs; and (d) to be employed as physiotherapists specialized-OMTs during the survey.

Results

791 responses were received (61.4%); 473 of them were male (59.8%), with an average age of 31.0 ± 7.1 years. OMTs defined nocebo-related effects as the psychosocial context effects around therapy and patient with specific biological bases (72.2%). OMTs know that their clinical practice is pervaded by nocebo-related effects (42.5%), triggered by CFs. Participants communicated nocebo-related effects balancing the positive features of the therapy with the negative ones (50.9%), during the decision of the therapeutic plan (42.7%). They reported associative learning as the main mechanism involved in nocebo-related effects (28.8%). OMTs taught and trained patient’s strategies to manage nocebo-related effects (39.6%) through an evaluation and correction of patient’s anxieties, doubts and expectations (37.7%). OMTs most frequently considered themselves to have a “medium” education about nocebo-related effects (48.2%) and that their management should be taught during bachelor (78.6%).

Conclusion

OMTs believed that nocebo-related effects were present in their clinical practice and that they can be triggered by CFs.

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.

Does Antiretroviral Therapy Packaging Matter? Perceptions and Preferences of Antiretroviral Therapy Packaging for People Living with HIV in Northern Tanzania

INTRODUCTION

Despite improvements in treatment (eg, reduction in pill intake), antiretroviral therapy (ART) is dispensed in socially inefficient and uneconomical packaging. To make pills less conspicuous and decrease the risk of being stigmatized, people living with HIV (PLWH) often engage in self-repackaging - the practice of transferring ART from original packaging to alternative containers. This behavior has been associated with ART nonadherence and failure to achieve viral load suppression. While much of the literature on ART packaging has centered around medication adherence, patients stated preferences for ART packaging and packaging attributes that influence the observed ART nonadherence are understudied.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study to elucidate perceptions of ART packaging among PLWH at two large referral hospitals in Northern Tanzania. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and coded.

RESULTS

Of the 16 participants whose data were used in the final analysis, a majority were between 36 and 55 years of age (Mean 45.5 years SD: 11.1), had primary-level education (n=11, 68.8%), were self-employed (n=9, 56.3%), reported that they had self-repacked ART (n=14, 88%), and were taking ART for more than 6 years (n=11, 68.8%). Participants identified three attributes of ART packaging that increased anticipated HIV stigma and prompted self-repackaging, including visual identification, bulkiness, and the rattling noise produced by ART pill bottles.

CONCLUSION

Given the drastic reduction in the number of pills required for HIV treatment, there is an opportunity to not only assess the cost-effectiveness of innovative ART packaging but also evaluate the acceptability of such packaging among PLWH in order to address stigma and improve ART adherence.

Inadequate description of placebo and sham controls in a systematic review of recent trials

BACKGROUND

Poorly described placebo/sham controls make it difficult to appraise active intervention benefits and harms. The 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was developed to improve the reporting of active interventions. The extent to which TIDieR has been used to improve description of placebo or sham control is not known.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically identified and examined all placebo/sham-controlled randomised trials published in 2018 in the top six general medical journals. We reported how many of the TIDieR checklist items were used to describe the placebo/sham control(s). We supplemented this with a sample of 100 placebo/sham-controlled trials from any journal and searched Google Scholar to identify placebo/sham-controlled trials citing TIDieR.

RESULTS

We identified 94 placebo/sham-controlled trials published in the top journals in 2018. None reported using TIDieR, and none reported placebo or sham components completely. On average eight TIDieR items were addressed, with placebo/sham control name (100%) and when and how much was administered (97.9%) most commonly reported. Some items (rationale, 8.5%, whether there were modifications, 25.5%) were less often reported. In our sample of less well-cited journals, reporting was poorer (average of six items) and followed a similar pattern. Since TIDieR's first publication, six placebo-controlled trials have cited it according to Google Scholar. Two of these used the checklist to describe placebo controls; neither one completely desribed the placebo intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Placebo and sham controls are poorly described within randomised trials, and TIDieR is rarely used to guide these descriptions. We recommend developing guidelines to promote better descriptions of placebo/sham control components within clinical trials.

The Bell Tolls for Homeopathy: Time for Change in the Training and Practice of North American Naturopathic Physicians

North American naturopathic medicine is a distinct form of practice that is woven into the larger fabric of integrative medicine; in a number of US states and Canadian provinces, naturopathic doctors enjoy a wide scope of practice, including the ability to make diagnoses, order tests, use medical technology, write prescription drugs, and perform minor surgeries. However, the basic premise of naturopathic medicine and its guiding principles-considering the whole person and supporting healthy lifestyle behaviors-is the unifying approach in clinical practice. In the 1970s, homeopathy-considered in many circles to be a hypothesis-driven, fringe form of alternative medicine-became embedded into the training and practice of North American naturopathic doctors. Since the earliest days of its theory (circa 1800), homeopathy has escaped, and continues to escape, biological plausibility; however, the persistence of this modality (and the insistence by both its consumers and practitioners that it provides benefit) speaks to the role of expectations, beliefs, values, agency, context effects, and the placebo-at-large. It is our contention that the progression of professional naturopathic medicine in the 21st century requires a major transition in how it approaches the subject of homeopathy. We propose that students should be encouraged to critically analyze the tenets of homeopathy, its lesser known history, and the idea of homeopathy as a biomedicine that simply awaits untold chemicophysical mechanisms. Furthermore, the modality of homeopathy should be incorporated into the larger context of placebo studies, narrative medicine, ethics, and psychotherapeutic techniques.