No open-label placebo effect in insomnia? Lessons learned from an experimental trial

Choice over placebo administration enhances open-label placebo hypoalgesia

ABSTRACT

Many studies indicate that deceptively administered placebos can improve pain outcomes. However, the deception involved presents an ethical barrier to translation because it violates informed consent and patient autonomy. Open-label placebos (OLPs), inert treatments that are openly administered as placebos, have been proposed as an ethically acceptable alternative. Early studies have suggested that OLP can improve pain outcomes, but important questions remain as to how to maximise OLP hypoalgesia to improve treatment outcomes in pain patients. This study investigated whether providing choice over when to administer an OLP treatment has the capacity to enhance OLP hypoalgesia using an electrocutaneous pain paradigm. One hundred thirty-two healthy volunteers were randomised to 3 types of treatment: OLP with choice, OLP without choice, and no treatment (natural history). The OLP groups were further randomised such that half were tested with a consistent pain intensity and the other half were tested with variable pain intensity to mimic day-to-day variability in pain intensity in health settings. The results indicated that treatment provided with choice exhibited greater OLP hypoalgesia than that provided without choice and that greater expectancy mediated this effect. Of interest, there was no evidence for OLP hypoalgesia without choice relative to natural history. Furthermore, variability in pain intensity did not affect OLP hypoalgesia. The current findings present novel evidence that choice over treatment administration may be a cheap and effective strategy for boosting the efficacy of OLPs in the clinical care of pain.

Effects of (non)deceptive placebos on reported sleep quality and food cue reactivity

A lack of sleep can increase appetite, particularly for high-calorie food. The current study tested the effects of an open-label placebo for improving sleep quality and reducing food cue reactivity. In open-label placebo interventions, placebo recipients are informed that they are receiving a placebo without a pharmacologically active substance. Participants (n = 150) were randomly allocated to one of three groups that received either an open-label placebo to improve sleep quality, a deceptive placebo ("melatonin"), or no placebo. The placebo was administered daily before bedtime for 1 week. Sleep quality and reactivity to high-calorie food cues (appetite, visual attention to food images) were assessed. The deceptive placebo (but not the open-label placebo) reduced reported sleep-onset latency. The open-label placebo decreased perceived sleep efficiency. The placebo interventions did not change food cue reactivity. This study demonstrated that open-label placebos do not present an alternative to deceptive placebos for improving sleep quality. The undesirable open-label placebo effects found warrant further exploration.

Open-label placebo treatment does not enhance cognitive abilities in healthy volunteers

The use of so-called 'smart drugs' such as modafinil to improve cognitive performance has recently attracted considerable attention. However, their side effects have limited user enthusiasm. Open-label placebo (OLP) treatment, i.e., inert treatments that are openly disclosed to individuals as having no active pharmacological ingredient, has been shown to improve various medical symptoms and conditions, including those related to cognitive performance. OLP treatment could therefore be an exciting alternative to pharmacological cognitive enhancers. Here, we used a randomized-controlled design to investigate the effect of a 21-day OLP treatment on several sub-domains of cognitive performance in N = 78 healthy volunteers. Subjective and objective measures of cognitive performance as well as different measures of well-being were obtained before and after the treatment period. Using a combination of classic Frequentist and Bayesian analysis approaches showed no additional benefit from OLP treatment in any of the subjective or objective measures of cognitive performance. Our study thus highlights possible limitations of OLP treatment in boosting cognitive performance in healthy volunteers. These findings are discussed in the light of expectancy-value considerations that may determine OLP efficacy.

The role of positive information provision in open-label placebo effects

Open label placebos (OLPs) appear generally efficacious among clinical samples, but the empirical evidence regarding their use in non-clinical and sub-clinical samples, as well as when administered independent of a convincing rationale, is mixed. Healthy participants (N = 102) were randomised to either a 6-day course of OLP pills with information provision (OLP-plus: N = 35), without information provision (OLP-only: N = 35), or no-treatment control group (N = 32). OLP pills were described as enhancing physical (symptoms and sleep) and psychological (positive and negative emotional) well-being. Well-being was assessed at baseline and on Day 6. Expectancies and adherence were measured. OLP administration interacted with baseline well-being. The OLP-plus group demonstrated increased well-being on all outcomes other than positive emotions, but only when they reported decreased baseline well-being. OLP-only and control groups did not differ. The OLP-plus group demonstrated elevated expectancies, that mediated the OLP effect on physical symptoms relative to control, but only when well-being was lower than average at baseline (i.e. moderated-mediation). Results demonstrate the importance of information provided with OLPs. The moderating effect of baseline outcomes may reconcile inconsistent results regarding clinical and non-clinical samples. Accounting for baseline symptoms in non-clinical and sub-clinical samples is likely to enhance our understanding of when OLPs are effective.

Insomnia

OBJECTIVE

This article provides an overview of the current definitions, diagnostic tools, and overall management of insomnia.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

The treatment of insomnia has shifted over time, with a growing emphasis on nonpharmacologic therapies as a first-line intervention and the leveraging of technology to aid in the dissemination of these therapies. With this evolution, the definition of insomnia has changed to reflect a common treatment pathway. As pharmacologic treatment options have increased, so has concern about the dangerous short-term and long-term adverse effects of these treatment options.

ESSENTIAL POINTS

Insomnia is a common disorder, frequently overlapping with other neurologic and psychiatric disorders, which can cause significant distress and disruption to patients' lives. Nonpharmacologic therapies are highly effective and are now considered first-line treatments. Although efficacy is variable, numerous pharmacologic interventions are available, and many options come with considerable concern about adverse effects, particularly in populations over 65 years old.

The roles of expectation, comparator, administration route, and population in open-label placebo effects: a network meta-analysis

Three meta-analyses have demonstrated the clinical potential of open-label placebos (OLPs). However, there is a need to synthesize the existing evidence through more complex analyses that would make it possible to answer questions beyond mere efficacy. Such analyses would serve to improve the understanding of why and under what circumstances OLPs work (e.g., depending on induced expectations or across different control groups). To answer these questions, we conducted the first network meta-analyses in the field of OLPs. Our analyses revealed that OLPs could be beneficial in comparison to no treatment in nonclinical (12 trials; 1015 participants) and clinical populations (25 trials; 2006 participants). Positive treatment expectations were found to be important for OLPs to work. Also, OLP effects can vary depending on the comparator used. While the kind of administration route had no substantial impact on the OLP effects, effects were found to be larger in clinical populations than in nonclinical populations. These results suggest that the expectation, comparator, administration route, and population should be considered when designing and interpreting OLP studies.

Reduction in caffeine withdrawal after open-label decaffeinated coffee

BACKGROUND

Withdrawal from addictive drugs can be reduced by administering placebo deceptively, but in the clinic it is unethical to deceive the patient. Open-label placebo effects have been observed across a range of psychophysiological phenomena, and may also apply to drug withdrawal.

METHOD

24-hour abstinent heavy coffee drinkers (N = 61) rated their caffeine withdrawal symptoms before being allocated to one of three groups. The Deceptive group was given decaffeinated coffee (decaf) and told it was caffeinated, the Open-Label group given decaf and told it was decaf and the Control group given water and told it was water. After 45 min, caffeine withdrawal was measured again. All participants rated their expectancies of withdrawal reduction from caffeinated coffee, decaf and water prior to being randomised and the end of the study.

RESULTS

There was a significant 9.5-point reduction in caffeine withdrawal in the Open-Label group (95% confidence interval (CI): 4.7, 14.3; p = 0.002), which was 8.6 points less than the Deceptive group (95%CI: 0.4, 16.8; p = 0.014) but 8.9 points greater than the Control group (95%CI: 0.6, 17.2; p = 0.012). Pre-randomisation, participants expected caffeinated coffee to reduce their withdrawal symptoms the most, followed by water and decaf, Pre-randomisation expectancy of withdrawal was only associated with amount of withdrawal reduction in the Deceptive group.

CONCLUSION

It appears as if open-label placebo caffeine (i.e. decaf) can reduce caffeine withdrawal symptoms, even when people do not hold a conscious expectancy it will do so. There may be ways to integrate open-label placebo procedures into clinical interventions for drug dependence without violating informed consent.