The hidden effects of blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trials: an experimental investigation

How side effects can improve treatment efficacy: a randomized trial

While treatment side effects may adversely impact patients, they could also potentially function as indicators for effective treatment. In this study, we investigated whether and how side effects can trigger positive treatment expectations and enhance treatment outcomes. In this pre-registered trial (DRKS00026648), 77 healthy participants were made to believe that they will receive fentanyl nasal sprays before receiving thermal pain in a controlled experimental setting. However, nasal sprays did not contain fentanyl, rather they either contained capsaicin to induce a side effect (mild burning sensation) or saline (inert). After the first session, participants were randomized to two groups and underwent functional MRI. One group continued to believe that the nasal sprays could contain fentanyl while the other group was explicitly informed that no fentanyl was included. This allowed for the independent manipulation of the side effects and the expectation of pain relief. Our results revealed that nasal sprays with a side effect lead to lower pain than inert nasal sprays without side effects. The influence of side effects on pain was dependent on individual beliefs about how side effects are related to treatment outcome, as well as on expectations about received treatment. Functional MRI data indicated an involvement of the descending pain modulatory system including the anterior cingulate cortex and the periaqueductal gray during pain after experiencing a nasal spray with side effects. In summary, our data show that mild side effects can serve as a signal for effective treatment thereby influencing treatment expectations and outcomes, which is mediated by the descending pain modulatory system. Using these mechanisms in clinical practice could provide an efficient way to optimize treatment outcome. In addition, our results indicate an important confound in clinical trials, where a treatment (with potential side effects) is compared to placebo.

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.

Placebo Effects Are Small on Average in the 7.5% CO2 Inhalational Model of Generalized Anxiety

BACKGROUND

Anxiety disorders are highly prevalent and socio-economically costly. Novel pharmacological treatments for these disorders are needed because many patients do not respond to current agents or experience unwanted side effects. However, a barrier to treatment development is the variable and large placebo response rate seen in trials of novel anxiolytics. Despite this, the mechanisms that drive placebo responses in anxiety disorders have been little investigated, possibly due to low availability of convenient experimental paradigms. We aimed to develop and test a novel protocol for inducing placebo anxiolysis in the 7.5% CO2 inhalational model of generalized anxiety in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

Following a baseline 20-minute CO2 challenge, 32 healthy volunteers were administered a placebo intranasal spray labelled as either the anxiolytic "lorazepam" or "saline." Following this, participants surreptitiously underwent a 20-minute inhalation of normal air. Post-conditioning, a second dose of the placebo was administered, after which participants completed another CO2 challenge.

RESULTS

Participants administered sham "lorazepam" reported significant positive expectations of reduced anxiety (P = .001), but there was no group-level placebo effect on anxiety following CO2 challenge post-conditioning (Ps > .350). Surprisingly, we found many participants exhibited unexpected worsening of anxiety, despite positive expectations.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to our hypothesis, our novel paradigm did not induce a placebo response, on average. It is possible that effects of 7.5% CO2 inhalation on prefrontal cortex function or behavior in line with a Bayesian predictive coding framework attenuated the effect of expectations on subsequent placebo response. Future studies are needed to explore these possibilities.

Treatment guesses in the Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study: Accuracy, unblinding and influence on outcomes

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the presence and impact of unblinding during the influential Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00006286).

METHOD

Our analysis was part of a Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials reanalysis. Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study trialled fluoxetine, placebo, cognitive behaviour therapy or their combination, in treating adolescents with major depressive disorder. We analysed the accuracy of guesses of fluoxetine or placebo allocation, and their effects on change in Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised at 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Of 221 participants allocated to fluoxetine or placebo, 151 adolescents (68%) had their guess about pill-treatment-arm allocation recorded at week 6, and guesses were recorded for 154 independent evaluators, 159 parents and 164 pharmacotherapists. All of these groups guessed treatment allocation more accurately than would be expected by chance (60-66% accuracy; all p-values ⩽ 0.004). Guesses did not become more accurate between 6 and 12 weeks and were not predicted by adverse events, though event documentation was poor. Treatment guess had a substantial and statistically significant effect on outcome (Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised change mean difference 9.12 [4.69; 13.55], β = 0.334, p < 0.001), but actual treatment arm did not (1.53 [-2.83; 5.89], β = 0.056, p = 0.489). Removing guess from the analysis increased the apparent effect of treatment arm, making it almost statistically significant at the conventional alpha-level of 0.05 (p = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

For Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study, treatment guesses strongly predicted outcomes and may have led to the exaggeration of drug effectiveness in the absence of actual effects. The integrity of double-blinding in trials should be routinely assessed and reported.

Sham controls in device trials for chronic pain - tricky in practice-a review article

Background

Chronic pain affects one in four people and this figure is likely to increase further in line with an ageing population. Efforts to evaluate nonpharmacological interventions to support this patient population have become a priority for pain research. For device trials, the use of a sham control can add to the scientific validity and quality of a study. However, only a small proportion of pain trials include a sham control, and many are of poor quality. To facilitate the conduct of high-quality trials there is a need for a comprehensive overview to guide researchers within this area. The objective of this review was to synthesise the published data to address this need.

Methods

We identified studies that considered the evaluation, design, and conduct of sham-controlled trials in chronic pain by searching MEDLINE, CINAHL and Science Direct to November 2022. Studies that included sufficient content to inform the conduct/design of future research were included. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used to identify themes that require consideration when conducting sham-controlled trials. These are presented as a narrative review.

Results

37 articles were included. Identified themes related to the type of sham device, sham design, bias, study population and ethics.

Conclusions

To conduct good quality research the challenges surrounding the use of sham interventions need to be better considered. We highlight salient issues and provide recommendations for the conduct and reporting of sham-controlled device trials in chronic pain.

The role of the communicated treatment rationale on treatment outcome: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Placebo effects are a well-established phenomenon in the treatment of depression. However, the mechanism underlying these effects are not fully understood. Treatment expectations are considered one explanation for why placebos work. Treatment expectations are likely to be affected by clinician-patient interactions. This study aims to investigate the role of the communicated treatment rationale in modulating treatment expectations and its effects on the treatment outcomes of a pharmacological and a psychological active placebo intervention for depression. In this study, treatment expectations are modulated by presenting illness models that are either congruent or incongruent with the treatment intervention that follows.

METHODS

This 2 × 2 randomized controlled trial will involve patients with major depression. Participants will either receive a biological or a psychological illness model from a clinician. Following this, they are randomly assigned to receive either a pharmacological or a psychological active placebo intervention. The illness model and the treatment are either congruent or incongruent with each other, resulting in four groups. In addition, a natural course control group will be included.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide insights into the mechanism of expectation modulation in active placebo treatments for major depression. The results may provide insights for clinicians to improve their communication with patients by focusing on treatment expectations. By identifying the factors that contribute to placebo effects, this study has the potential to improve the effectiveness of existing depression treatments and reduce the burden of this highly prevalent mental health condition.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial has been registered prospectively at ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier: NCT04719663. Registered on January 22, 2021.

The Biology of Placebo and Nocebo Effects on Experimental and Chronic Pain: State of the Art

(1) Background: In recent years, placebo and nocebo effects have been extensively documented in different medical conditions, including pain. The scientific literature has provided strong evidence of how the psychosocial context accompanying the treatment administration can influence the therapeutic outcome positively (placebo effects) or negatively (nocebo effects). (2) Methods: This state-of-the-art paper aims to provide an updated overview of placebo and nocebo effects on pain. (3) Results: The most common study designs, the psychological mechanisms, and neurobiological/genetic determinants of these phenomena are discussed, focusing on the differences between positive and negative context effects on pain in experimental settings on healthy volunteers and in clinical settings on chronic pain patients. Finally, the last section describes the implications for clinical and research practice to maximize the medical and scientific routine and correctly interpret the results of research studies on placebo and nocebo effects. (4) Conclusions: While studies on healthy participants seem consistent and provide a clear picture of how the brain reacts to the context, there are no unique results of the occurrence and magnitude of placebo and nocebo effects in chronic pain patients, mainly due to the heterogeneity of pain. This opens up the need for future studies on the topic.

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.

Impact of active placebo controls on estimated drug effects in randomised trials: a systematic review of trials with both active placebo and standard placebo

BACKGROUND

An estimated 60% of pharmacological randomised trials use placebo control interventions to blind (i.e. mask) participants. However, standard placebos do not control for perceptible non-therapeutic effects (i.e. side effects) of the experimental drug, which may unblind participants. Trials rarely use active placebo controls, which contain pharmacological compounds designed to mimic the non-therapeutic experimental drug effects in order to reduce the risk of unblinding. A relevant improvement in the estimated effects of active placebo compared with standard placebo would imply that trials with standard placebo may overestimate experimental drug effects.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to estimate the difference in drug effects when an experimental drug is compared with an active placebo versus a standard placebo control intervention, and to explore causes for heterogeneity. In the context of a randomised trial, this difference in drug effects can be estimated by directly comparing the effect difference between the active placebo and standard placebo intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, two other databases, and two trial registries up to October 2020. We also searched reference lists and citations and contacted trial authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials that compared an active placebo versus a standard placebo intervention. We considered trials both with and without a matching experimental drug arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data, assessed risk of bias, scored active placebos for adequacy and risk of unintended therapeutic effect, and categorised active placebos as unpleasant, neutral, or pleasant. We requested individual participant data from the authors of four cross-over trials published after 1990 and one unpublished trial registered after 1990. Our primary inverse-variance, random-effects meta-analysis used standardised mean differences (SMDs) of active versus standard placebo for participant-reported outcomes at earliest post-treatment assessment. A negative SMD favoured the active placebo. We stratified analyses by trial type (clinical or preclinical) and supplemented with sensitivity and subgroup analyses and meta-regression. In secondary analyses, we investigated observer-reported outcomes, harms, attrition, and co-intervention outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 trials (1462 participants). We obtained individual participant data from four trials. Our primary analysis of participant-reported outcomes at earliest post-treatment assessment resulted in a pooled SMD of -0.08 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.20 to 0.04; I2 = 31%; 14 trials), with no clear difference between clinical and preclinical trials. Individual participant data contributed 43% of the weight of this analysis. Two of seven sensitivity analyses found more pronounced and statistically significant differences; for example, in the five trials with low overall risk of bias, the pooled SMD was -0.24 (95% CI -0.34 to -0.13). The pooled SMD of observer-reported outcomes was similar to the primary analysis. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for harms was 3.08 (95% CI 1.56 to 6.07), and for attrition, 1.22 (95% CI 0.74 to 2.03). Co-intervention data were limited. Meta-regression found no statistically significant association with adequacy of the active placebo or risk of unintended therapeutic effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find a statistically significant difference between active and standard placebo control interventions in our primary analysis, but the result was imprecise and the CI compatible with a difference ranging from important to irrelevant. Furthermore, the result was not robust, because two sensitivity analyses produced a more pronounced and statistically significant difference. We suggest that trialists and users of information from trials carefully consider the type of placebo control intervention in trials with high risk of unblinding, such as those with pronounced non-therapeutic effects and participant-reported outcomes.

Open-label placebos-a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies with non-clinical samples

The use of open-label placebos (OLPs) has shown to be effective in clinical trials. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine whether OLPs are effective in experimental studies with non-clinical populations. We searched five databases on April 15, 2021. We conducted separate analyses for self-reported and objective outcomes and examined whether the level of suggestiveness of the instructions influenced the efficacy of OLPs. Of the 3573 identified records, 20 studies comprising 1201 participants were included, of which 17 studies were eligible for meta-analysis. The studies investigated the effect of OLPs on well-being, pain, stress, arousal, wound healing, sadness, itchiness, test anxiety, and physiological recovery. We found a significant effect of OLPs for self-reported outcomes (k = 13; standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.28, 0.58; I2 = 7.2%), but not for objective outcomes (k = 8; SMD =  - 0.02; 95% CI =  - 0.25, 0.21; I2 = 43.6%). The level of suggestiveness of the instructions influenced the efficacy of OLPs for objective outcomes (p = 0.02), but not for self-reported outcomes. The risk of bias was moderate for most studies, and the overall quality of the evidence was rated low to very low. In conclusion, OLPs appear to be effective when examined in experimental studies. However, further research is needed to better understand the mechanisms underlying OLPs.

[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.

Do expectations influence pain? Recognizing Irving Kirsch's contribution to our understanding of pain

Pain is a universal experience that can take different forms, and it can be acute or chronic. Experimental pain, such as heat pain, can help us better understand the pain experience, as it induces transient, but robust central sensitization in participants. Central sensitization is considered a key underlying concept in the development and maintenance of chronic pain and is defined as an overly effective transmission of nociception in the central nervous system. Expectations can influence perceived pain intensity and treatment success. Irving Kirsch's work in the field of experimental pain has greatly contributed to our understanding of how expectations influence the pain experience. In this article, we present some of Kirsch's landmark studies in this area and discuss their (clinical) implications.

Even when you know it is a placebo, you experience less sadness: First evidence from an experimental open-label placebo investigation

BACKGROUND

Recent studies demonstrate substantial effects of deceptive placebo on experimentally induced sadness, even on autonomic activity. Whether deception is necessary, remains to be elucidated. We investigated the effect of an open-label placebo (OLP) treatment, i.e. an openly administered placebo delivered with a convincing rationale for its sadness-protecting effect.

METHODS

Eighty-four healthy females were randomized to an OLP group or a no-treatment control group. All participants received the same detailed information about the OLP effect, only the OLP group received an OLP nasal spray. Before and after the OLP intervention, participants underwent a sad mood induction procedure combining self-deprecating statements (Velten's method) and sad music. Sadness was assessed by the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS-X). Autonomic activity was measured continuously.

RESULTS

Participants in the OLP group reported a significantly attenuated increase in sadness upon mood induction and less sadness after induction compared to the control group (d = 0.79). Regardless of intervention, heart rate decreased during mood inductions with a more pronounced deceleration in the second mood induction.

LIMITATIONS

Generalizability is limited due to the selective sample and the reliance on an experimentally controlled mood induction.

CONCLUSION

OLP treatment had a beneficial effect on perceived sadness, at least at the subjective level. Hence, deception may not necessarily be required for placebos to modulate experienced sad mood. Investigating the beneficial effects of OLP in (sub-)clinical samples would seem a promising and required next step towards a clinical use of placebo-associated positive treatment expectations.

HOW DO THEY ADD UP? THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE PLACEBO AND TREATMENT EFFECT: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Aim

The placebo effect and the specific effect are often thought to add up (additive model). Whether additivity holds can dramatically influence the external validity of a trial. This assumption of additivity was tested by Kleijnen et al in 1994 but the data produced since then have not been synthetized. In this review, we aimed to systematically review the literature to determine whether additivity held.

Methods

We searched Medline and PsychInfo up to 10 January 2019. Studies using the balanced placebo design (BPD), testing two different strengths of placebos, were included. The presence of interaction was evaluated by comparing each group in the BPD with analysis of variance or covariance.

Results

Thirty studies were included and the overall risk of bias was high: four found evidence of additivity and 16 studies found evidence of interaction (seven had evidence of positive additivity).

Conclusion

Evidence of additivity between placebo and specific features of treatments was rare in included studies. We suggest interventions for placebo‐sensitive ailments should be tested in trials designed to take interactions seriously once an exploratory RCTs has proven their efficacy with sufficient internal validity.

Effects of previous experience with dry needling therapy on blinding effectiveness and pain outcomes in people with neck pain: A preliminary sham-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Participants' previous experience with an intervention may be an important variable when conducting sham-controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE

This study explored if previous experience with dry needling (DN) influenced blinding effectiveness and pain outcomes, after the application of DN in patients with neck pain.

DESIGN

A preliminary randomized, sham-controlled study.

METHODS

Participants were randomized to receive a single session of real or sham DN. Previous experience with DN (yes/no) was recorded. Blinding effectiveness was assessed by asking participants to guess their group allocation (real/sham/not sure) 5 min post-intervention. Outcomes including pain intensity, pressure pain thresholds, and self-perceived improvement, were assessed by a blinded assessor at baseline, one- and seven-days post-intervention.

RESULTS

Of 50 patients recruited, 30 had previous experience and 20 did not. Fifty-seven percent (n = 17/30) with previous experience and 35% (n = 7/20) without experience correctly identified their group allocation, but this difference was not significant (χ² = 2.333; P = 0.127). No interaction between previous experience and clinical outcomes were found, except that participants with previous experience receiving real DN showed greater improvements in pain during cervical rotation than those without previous experience at one (Δ -11.5 mm 95%CI -22.0 to -1.0 mm) and seven days (Δ -8.5 mm, -16.00 to -1.0 mm) post-intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants with previous experience were 22% more accurate at identifying their group allocation than those without experience, but the difference was not significant. Previous experience did not influence most clinical outcomes, except for pain intensity after real DN. Future studies evaluating effects of previous experience of DN should include more detailed information of previous experience.

Frequency of Adverse Events in the Placebo Arms of COVID-19 Vaccine Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Adverse events (AEs) after placebo treatment are common in randomized clinical drug trials. Systematic evidence regarding these nocebo responses in vaccine trials is important for COVID-19 vaccination worldwide especially because concern about AEs is reported to be a reason for vaccination hesitancy.

Objective

To compare the frequencies of AEs reported in the placebo groups of COVID-19 vaccine trials with those reported in the vaccine groups.

Data Sources

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, the Medline (PubMed) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched systematically using medical subheading terms and free-text keywords for trials of COVID-19 vaccines published up to July 14, 2021.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines that investigated adults aged 16 years or older were selected if they assessed solicited AEs within 7 days of injection, included an inert placebo arm, and provided AE reports for both the vaccine and placebo groups separately. Full texts were reviewed for eligibility by 2 independent reviewers.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by 2 reviewers, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline and using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Meta-analyses were based on random-effects models.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were the proportions of placebo recipients reporting overall, systemic, and local (injection-site) AEs as well as logarithmic odds ratios (ORs) to evaluate group differences. Outcomes were tested for significance using z tests with 95% CIs.

Results

Twelve articles with AE reports for 45 380 participants (22 578 placebo recipients and 22 802 vaccine recipients) were analyzed. After the first dose, 35.2% (95% CI, 26.7%-43.7%) of placebo recipients experienced systemic AEs, with headache (19.3%; 95% CI, 13.6%-25.1%) and fatigue (16.7%; 95% CI, 9.8%-23.6%) being most common. After the second dose, 31.8% (95% CI, 28.7%-35.0%) of placebo recipients reported systemic AEs. The ratio between placebo and vaccine arms showed that nocebo responses accounted for 76.0% of systemic AEs after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose and for 51.8% after the second dose. Significantly more vaccine recipients reported AEs, but the group difference for systemic AEs was small after the first dose (OR, -0.47; 95% CI, -0.54 to -0.40; P < .001; standardized mean difference, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.30 to -0.22) and large after the second dose (OR, -1.36; 95% CI, -1.86 to -0.86; P < .001; standardized mean difference, -0.75; 95% CI, -1.03 to -0.47).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, significantly more AEs were reported in vaccine groups compared with placebo groups, but the rates of reported AEs in the placebo arms were still substantial. Public vaccination programs should consider these high rates of AEs in placebo arms.

Placebo nasal spray protects female participants from experimentally induced sadness and concomitant changes in autonomic arousal

BACKGROUND

To investigate the powerful placebo effects in antidepressant drug trials and their mechanisms, recent pioneering experimental studies showed that expectation manipulation combined with an active placebo attenuated induced sadness. In the present study, we aimed at extending these findings by assessing the psychophysiological response in addition to mere self-report.

METHODS

One hundred and thirteen healthy female students were randomly assigned to a drug expectation group (active placebo, positive treatment expectation), placebo expectation group (active placebo, no treatment expectation), or a no-treatment group (no placebo, no treatment expectation). After placebo intake, sadness was induced by self-deprecating statements using the Velten method combined with sad music, including a rumination phase. Sadness was measured using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Expanded Form (PANAS-X). Heart rate and skin conductance were assessed continuously.

RESULTS

After mood induction and after rumination, self-reported sadness was significantly lower, and skin conductance level was significantly higher, in the drug expectation group than in the no-treatment group. The mood induction was further accompanied by a heart rate deceleration within all groups.

LIMITATIONS

Generalizability is limited by sample selectivity and focusing on sadness as a symptom of depression, exclusively.

CONCLUSION

Expectation-induced placebo effects significantly influenced sadness-correlated changes in autonomic arousal, and not only subjectively reported sadness, indicating that placebo effects in the context of affect are not merely due to subjective response bias. The systematic modification of treatment expectation could be utilized in clinical practice to optimize current therapeutic approaches to improve mood regulation.

No evidence that attentional bias towards pain-related words is associated with verbally induced nocebo hyperalgesia: a dot-probe study

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

This study examined attention as a mechanism of nocebo hyperalgesia. No association was observed between attentional bias towards pain-related words and nocebo hyperalgesia.

Introduction:

Placebo and nocebo effects in pain are well documented. One leading explanation is that instructions indicating that pain will either increase or decrease after receipt of a treatment give rise to expectations for increased or decreased pain. However, the psychological mechanisms through which expectations affect pain perception are not well understood. One possibility is that the expectation of increased pain leads to anticipatory anxiety, which in turn increases attention towards painful sensations.

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that attention mediates nocebo hyperalgesia. This was done by measuring attentional bias towards pain using a dot-probe task both before and after a nocebo manipulation.

Methods:

Ninety-six healthy volunteers were randomized to receive one of the following: (1) an inert nasal spray with placebo instructions, (2) an inert nasal spray with nocebo instructions, or (3) no treatment. Participants completed measures of expectations, anxiety, and attention bias (dot-probe paradigm) both before and after randomization.

Results:

Results showed that the nocebo instructions induced expectations for increased pain and resulted in nocebo hyperalgesia. Conversely, the placebo instruction failed to induce expectations for decreases in pain and did not demonstrate any placebo analgesia. Furthermore, despite the significant expectancies for pain and subsequent nocebo hyperalgesia, there were no differences between the nocebo group and either the placebo or no-treatment group for anxiety or attentional bias.

Conclusion:

The results are consistent with the expectancy model of placebo and nocebo effects. That is, changes in expectations seemed to be necessary to induce a placebo or nocebo effect. However, there was no evidence that anxiety or attention bias towards pain-related stimuli was necessary to achieve nocebo hyperalgesia.

The placebo phenomenon and the underlying mechanisms

The clinical role of the placebo effect is a topic of increasing interest for the scientific community. Focus is shifting from the inert role of placebos in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to potential effects in clinical applications, since the phenomenon is thought to be inherent in routine clinical practice, affecting therapy success rates. Mediation of the mind-brain-body relationship involves both psychosocial and neurobiological factors, the interaction of which comprises the placebo mechanisms. Psychosocial factors include environmentally induced expectations, reward expectations, and even conditioned responses to certain stimuli. Expectations also depend on previous experience of the patient with a similar procedure and can affect future responses. Moreover, the supportive bedside behavior of the clinician and the positive framing of information provided to the patient have proven to be of great importance, setting the foundations for reconsideration of standardized practices. Neurobiological mechanisms mediate these effects through neurotransmitter and neuromodulator pathways. The best understood mechanisms are those regulating non-opioid- and opioid-mediated analgesic responses that implicate specific brain regions of pain control and activation of endogenous opioids. Other responses concern, among others, hormonal control, motor performance, and antidepressant responses. Although mechanisms underlying placebo responses are not as yet completely elucidated, there is substantial evidence suggesting that placebo effects are indicative of healthy functioning of intact brain structures and occur through actual functional changes, and are not simply subjective symptom reports. These effects can be utilized in treatment optimization while maintaining an ethical and respectful manner toward the patient and the standardized disclosure procedures.

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 prevents rumination: An experimental study

BACKGROUND

Rumination is a risk factor for the development and maintenance of depressive symptoms and represents an important target for the treatment of depression. In the present study, we aimed to examine whether rumination can be reduced when participants are led to believe that they would receive medication that would prevent them from ruminating.

METHODS

In healthy participants (N= 91), an initial dysphoric state was induced via mood-suggestive music and autobiographic recall. Subsequently, participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: an experimental group that received a deceptive active placebo via intranasal application accompanied by expectancy-enhancing instructions vs. a no-treatment control group. Then, rumination was induced via a rumination-activating task. The primary outcome was current rumination; experienced sadness was considered a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Consistent with the hypothesis, participants receiving the placebo reported a significantly lower increase in current rumination (d= 0.57) and a higher decrease in sadness (d= 0.69) after the experimental induction than the control group.

LIMITATIONS

The external validity of this study might be limited due to the highly educated student sample.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that rumination processes as well as experienced sadness can be positively influenced by placebo treatment. To evaluate its clinical potential, placebo-induced expectancy effects in rumination research should be further examined, particularly with clinically depressed patients. Also, the results imply that clinicians might consider the effects of expectations on patients' rumination tendencies, for example by explicitly addressing patients' expectations about rumination, mood, and the treatment in general.

Expectation-induced placebo effect on acute sadness in women with major depression: An experimental investigation

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses demonstrate that placebo effects play an important role in antidepressant treatment. Expectations seem to constitute a highly relevant placebo mechanism in this context. This study investigated whether an expectation manipulation combined with the intake of an active placebo could reduce acute sadness in depressed participants following a sadness-inducing mood manipulation.

METHODS

Women who suffered from a major depressive episode (N = 94) were randomly allocated to the drug expectation group (expectation to receive a fast-operating antidepressant), the placebo expectation group (expectation to receive a placebo) or the no treatment group (no expectation, no placebo). The drug expectation and the placebo expectation group received a placebo. All participants watched a sadness-inducing film. Sadness was assessed at baseline, after randomization and after placebo intake and mood induction. Data were analyzed by a 3 × 3 analysis of variance.

RESULTS

There were significant between-group differences in sadness change from the baseline after mood induction. While sadness increased in the no treatment group, it did not change in the placebo expectation group. In the drug expectation group, sadness even decreased.

LIMITATIONS

Only a single medication intake was simulated. Effects on acute sadness do not allow inferences about depression symptoms.

CONCLUSION

This experimental study found a placebo effect on sadness in clinically depressed participants. The effects were even larger than expected. Future research must investigate placebo effects on depression symptoms as well as long-term placebo intake.

Caesarean delivery rates and analgesia effectiveness following injections of sterile water for back pain in labour: A multicentre, randomised placebo controlled trial

BACKGROUND

About a third of women experience severe back pain during labour. Injecting small volumes of intracutaneous sterile water into the lumbar region can be used to relieve this pain, however the procedure is controversial and previous reviews call for high quality trials to establish efficacy. We evaluated the impact on birth outcomes and analgesic effects of sterile water injections.

METHODS

A multicentre, double-blind trial undertaken between December 2012 and December 2017 in one British and 15 Australian maternity units. Women experiencing severe back-pain in labour were assigned (1:1) by an independently generated randomisation schedule stratified by site to injections of either sterile water or saline placebo. Participants and caregivers were blinded to group allocation. The primary outcome was caesarean delivery rate. Main secondary outcomes included at least 30% or 50% reduction in self-reported pain scores at 30, 60 and 90 minutes after treatment. Intention to treat analysis were used and the level of significance for the multiple clinical outcomes was set at p<0.001 with the Bonferroni correction applied. The study is registered with the ACTRN Registry number, ACTRN1261100022195.

FINDINGS

Between December 9, 2012, and December 15, 2017, 1166 women were recruited and randomised: 587 women received sterile water injections (SWI) and 579 a saline placebo. Seven women in the SWI group and 12 in the placebo group were excluded as consent was not completed, leaving 580 and 567, respectively, included in the analysis. The proportions of caesarean delivery were 17·1% (82 of 580) in the SWI group and 14·8% (82 of 567) in the placebo (RR 1·16, 95% CI 0·88-1.51; p = 0·293). At 30 min post treatment 60·8% (330 of 543) of women in the SWI group reported a 30% reduction in self-reported pain compared to 31·4% (163 of 520) placebo (RR 1·94, 95% CI 1·68-2·24; p=<0·001) and 43·3% (235 of 534) SWI reported a 50% reduction versus 18·1% (94 of 520) placebo (RR 2·39, 95% CI 1·95-2·94; p=<0·001). The analgesic effect of SWI compared to placebo remained significant at 60 and 90 min post-treatment. There were no significant differences in other maternal or neonatal outcomes.

INTERPRETATION

Compared to placebo, injections of sterile water did not reduce rates of caesarean delivery. For the main secondary outcome of pain relief the intervention did result in significantly more women reporting at least 30% and 50% reduction in pain for up to 90 min. Water injections have no effect on birth outcomes though can be an effective treatment for the relief of labour-related back pain.Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Can insights from placebo and nocebo mechanisms studies improve the randomized controlled trial?

Background and aims The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is currently facing several challenges, one of these being that the placebo response appears to be increasing in RCTs, thereby making it difficult to demonstrate an effect of potentially new treatments over placebo. This problem has primarily been approached by predicting the magnitude of the placebo response via stable factors, such as demographic variables, and/or by developing complex designs aimed at reducing the placebo response in the hope that it will improve the test of the active treatment. Yet, the success of this approach has so far been limited. Methods A new approach toward improving the RCT is put forward based on placebo and nocebo mechanism studies, i.e. studies that investigate the mechanisms underlying placebo analgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia. In a series of meta-analyses the magnitude of placebo and nocebo effects were determined. Experimental studies across nociplastic and neuropathic pain conditions and across pharmacological and acupuncture treatments investigated psychological and neurobiological mechanisms underlying these effects. The obtained results were used to make approximations of expectations to see if that could predict the placebo response in RCTs and function as a new way of tapping into the placebo component of treatment effects. Results The magnitude of placebo and nocebo effects is large and highly variable. Placebo effects exist across chronic pain conditions with varying degrees of known etiology as well as across pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. Patients' perception of the treatment, the verbal suggestions given for pain relief, and the patients' expectations toward pain relief contribute to the magnitude of the placebo effect and to pain relief following placebo interventions. Also, unintentional unblinding and patients' perception of a treatment markedly influence the treatment outcome. By making approximations of expectations toward treatment effects it was possible to predict the magnitude of the placebo response in RCTs. Conclusions and implications The new approach of tapping into or directly asking patients about their perception and expectations toward a treatment, along with the account of the natural history of pain, has the potential to improve the information that can be obtained from RCTs. Thus, by interfacing insights from placebo and nocebo mechanism studies, it may be possible to enhance the information that can be obtained from RCTs and to account for a large part of the variability in the placebo component of the overall treatment effect. This approach has the potential to improve the scientific evaluation of treatments, as well as to illustrate how the effect of treatments can be optimized in clinical practice, which is the crux of evidence-based medicine.

[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.

[The role of placebo and nocebo mechanisms in depressive diseases and their treatment]

BACKGROUND

There is substantial evidence that placebo and nocebo effects occur during treatment with antidepressants. A better understanding of the underlying mechanisms of these effects is necessary to optimize the outcome of treatment and to make clinical studies more sensitive.

METHODS

Placebo and nocebo mechanisms were analyzed based on empirical studies and the results are summarized in a narrative review.

RESULTS

Clinical studies and also experimental mechanism-oriented studies underline the effects of placebo and nocebo mechanisms in the treatment with antidepressants.

CONCLUSION

The success of treatment in the use of antidepressants can be increased and the probability of side effects can be reduced by the effective use of placebo mechanisms and reduction of nocebo effects. The results emphasize the influence of clinician-patient interactions, the role of the treatment context and previous experiences with other treatments of the patient. Simultaneously, the results of this research field stimulate a new understanding of mental disorders, in particular depression and also provide points of reference for optimization of psychotherapeutic treatment.

Effects of working memory training on emotion regulation: Transdiagnostic review

Working memory training is widely used transdiagnostically to improve cognition. However, more recently, studies using working memory training packages have targeted emotion-regulation outcomes to determine whether far transfer effects can be achieved. A narrative review is conducted of studies that have used standardized computerized working memory training packages across healthy volunteers, affect, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and eating disordered populations with emotion-regulation outcomes. Working memory training has been used in children, adolescents, and adults to improve emotion regulation. Many studies have reported gains in mood as well as emotion-regulation strategies following working memory training, regardless of clinical indication and whether near transfer gains were achieved in cognitive domains. Significant emotion-regulation outcomes include: state and trait anxiety, rumination, brooding, positive appraisal, decreasing maladaptive emotion-regulation strategies, and decreasing intrusive thoughts. It is speculated that these far transfer outcomes from working memory training are possible due to the cognitive and neural overlap between cognitive and affective working memory, and emotion regulation. Working memory training could improve cognitive efficiency, which, in turn, increases the availability of cognitive resources during times when emotion regulation is taxed. Future studies need to consider the role of participant expectancy in predicting outcome measure performance, and including subjective and objective outcomes is paramount to study design. Furthermore, sample sizes require additional attention, given that the current review highlights that individual differences in non-clinical and clinical populations influence the outcomes from working memory training. Working memory training offers a possibility for improving emotion regulation transdiagnostically.

Effects of Prehypnotic Instructions on Hypnotizability and Relationships Between Hypnotizability, Absorption, and Empathy

Although hypnotizability exhibits high across-time and across-test consistencies, it is not clear (a) how different preambles to a hypnotic procedure (metasuggestions) influence responsiveness to suggestions and the strength of the association between two hypnotizability scales and (b) how hypnotizability relates to absorption and empathy. In Experiment 1, nonclinical participants (N = 152 women) were administered the Modified Tellegen Absorption Scale (MODTAS), Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP), and Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS:C). In Experiment 2, nonclinical participants (N = 188; 105 women and 83 men) were administered the MODTAS, IRI, and Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A). The induction scores of the HIP (HIP-IND) and the SHSS:C scores showed a significantly stronger correlation when the HIP was introduced to the participants after hypnosis metasuggestion (HIP-H-IND) than after imagination metasuggestion (HIP-I-IND). Metasuggestion was a moderator of the association between HIP-IND and SHSS:C scores. Participants with low and medium, but not with high, hypnotizability levels on the SHSS:C showed significantly higher scores on the HIP-I-IND than on the HIP-H-IND. The strong correlations between the SHSS:C, HIP-H-IND, and HIP eye-roll (HIP-ER) scores indicate that both the HIP-H-IND and HIP-ER are robust measures of hypnotizability. Absorption and empathy were not significantly associated with hypnotizability. Women were more hypnotizable than men, as assessed by the HGSHS:A. The clinical relevance of metasuggestions, intended to increase responsiveness to suggestions, is discussed as a strategy to improve treatment outcomes.

Placebo Effects in the Neuroendocrine System: Conditioning of the Oxytocin Responses

OBJECTIVE

There is evidence that placebo effects may influence hormone secretion. However, few studies have examined placebo effects in the endocrine system, including oxytocin placebo effects. We studied whether it is possible to trigger oxytocin placebo effects using a classical conditioning paradigm.

METHODS

Ninety-nine women were assigned to a conditioned, control, or drug control group. In the two-phase conditioning paradigm, participants in the conditioned and drug control groups received an oxytocin nasal spray combined with a distinctive smell (conditioned stimulus [CS]) for three acquisition days, whereas the control group received placebo spray. Subsequently, the conditioned and control groups received placebo spray with the CS and the drug control group received oxytocin spray for three evocation days. Salivary oxytocin was measured several times during each day. Pain sensitivity and facial evaluation tests previously used in oxytocin research were also administered.

RESULTS

On evocation day 1, in the conditioned group, oxytocin significantly increased from baseline to 5 minutes after CS (B[slope] = 19.55, SE = 5.88, p < .001) and remained increased from 5 to 20 (B = -10.42, SE = 5.81, p = .071) and 50 minutes (B = -0.70, SE = 3.37, p = .84). On evocation day 2, a trend for increase in oxytocin was found at 5 minutes (B = 15.22, SE = 8.14, p = .062). No placebo effect was found on evocation day 3 (B = 3.57, SE = 3.26, p = .28). Neither exogenous nor conditioned oxytocin affected pain or facial tasks.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that oxytocin release can be conditioned and that this response extinguishes over time. Triggering hormonal release by placebo manipulation offers various clinical possibilities, such as enhancing effects of pharmacological treatments or reducing dosages of medications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered as a clinical trial on www.trialregister.nl (number NTR5596).

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.

Placebo mechanisms in depression: An experimental investigation of the impact of expectations on sadness in female participants

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to examine whether drug-associated expectations have an impact on the experience of sadness. We hypothesized that participants who received an active placebo nasal spray (but were told that it was an antidepressant that would protect them from experiencing negative emotions) would become less sad than the control groups.

METHODS

128 healthy female participants were randomly allocated to one of four groups: the experimental group, which received an active placebo and the expectancy-modifying instructions ("Protection: the spray protects from experiencing negative emotions", n = 32), or one of three different control groups ("Sensitization": the spray sensitizes to negative emotions", n = 31; "Placebo: the spray is a placebo", n = 32; and "Control: no nasal spray", n = 32) RESULTS: In line with our hypotheses, the experimental group experienced significantly less sadness after having watched a sadness provoking film sequence compared to the three control groups, with medium- to large effect sizes (Hedge´s gs 0.59-0.87).

DISCUSSION

Our results suggest that sadness can be significantly influenced by placebos in the short-term. Our study further suggests that knowledge about the effect of placebos on depressive symptoms should be utilized in clinical practice. However, depression is a complex disorder and antidepressants address a wide range of symptoms associated with depression such as suicidal thoughts, disturbed sleep and loss of energy. Further research on the placebo effects associated with the antidepressant treatment is needed.

LIMITATIONS

concern generalizability to treatment because sadness is only one potential symptom of depression and antidepressants often also address other symptoms.

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.

Placebo and Nocebo Effects Across Symptoms: From Pain to Fatigue, Dyspnea, Nausea, and Itch

Placebo and nocebo effects are, respectively, the helpful and harmful treatment effects that do not arise from active treatment components. These effects have thus far been researched most often in pain. It is not yet clear to what extent these findings from pain can be generalized to other somatic symptoms. This review investigates placebo and nocebo effects in four other highly prevalent symptoms: dyspnea, fatigue, nausea, and itch. The role of learning mechanisms (verbal suggestions, conditioning) in placebo and nocebo effects on various outcomes (self-reported, behavioral, and physiological) of these different somatic symptoms is explored. A search of experimental studies indicated that, as in pain, the combination of verbal suggestion and conditioning is generally more effective than suggestion alone for evoking placebo and nocebo effects. However, conditioning appears more and verbal suggestions less relevant in symptoms other than pain, with the exception of placebo effects on fatigue and nocebo effects on itch. Physiological measures, such as heart rate, lung function, or gastric activity, are rarely affected even when self-reported symptoms are. Neurobiological correlates are rarely investigated, and few commonalities appear across symptoms. Expectations generally predict placebo and nocebo effects for dyspnea and itch but seem less involved in fatigue and nausea. Individual characteristics do not consistently predict placebo or nocebo effects across symptoms or studies. In sum, many conclusions deriving from placebo and nocebo pain studies do appear to apply to other somatic symptoms, but a number of important differences exist. Understanding what type of learning mechanisms for which symptom are most likely to trigger placebo and nocebo effects is crucial for generalizing knowledge for research and therapies across symptoms and can help clinicians to optimize placebo effects in practice.

It is not just the drugs that matter: the nocebo effect

The role of psychological mechanisms in the treatment process cannot be underestimated, the well-known placebo effect unquestionably being a factor in treatment. However, there is also a dark side to the impact of mental processes on health/illness as exemplified by the nocebo effect. This phenomenon includes the emergence or exacerbation of negative symptoms associated with the therapy, but arising as a result of the patient's expectations, rather than being an actual complication of treatment. The exact biological mechanisms of this process are not known, but cholecystokinergic and dopaminergic systems, changes in the HPA axis, and the endogenous secretion of opioids are thought to be involved. The nocebo effect can affect a significant proportion of people undergoing treatment, including cancer patients, leading in some cases to the cessation of potentially effective therapy, because of adverse effects that are not actually part of the biological effect of treatment. In extreme cases, as a result of suggestions and expectations, a paradoxical effect, biologically opposite to the mechanism of the action of the drug, may occur. In addition, the nocebo effect may significantly interfere with the results of clinical trials, being the cause of a significant proportion of complications reported. Knowledge of the phenomenon is thus necessary in order to facilitate its minimalization and thus improve the quality of life of patients and the effectiveness of treatment.

Decreasing the Burden of Side Effects Through Positive Message Framing: an Experimental Proof-of-Concept Study

PURPOSE

Informing patients about treatment side effects increases the occurrence and intensity of side effects. Since the obligatory informed consent procedure in drug treatments requires transparency and nocebo research suggests that the informed consent of a drug leads to an increased occurrence of the mentioned side effects, the aim of this proof of concept study was to determine the effect of two different framings of informed consent on the occurrence, intensity, and perceived threat of side effects.

METHODS

Healthy male participants (n = 80) were randomized to one of two framing groups. The positive framing group was informed that the common side effect dizziness was a sign that the drug had started to work, while the neutral framing group was told that dizziness is an unpleasant but well-known side effect. Side effects were measured after the administration of metoprolol, an antihypertensive agent. Post hoc moderator analyses investigated the effect of pre-existing negative beliefs about the general harm of medication on the framing manipulation.

RESULTS

Metoprolol-specific drug-attributed side effects were rated significantly less threatening in the positive framing group. The between-group effect size (Cohen's d) was small (d = 0.38, p = 0.049). Exploratory post hoc moderator analyses suggest that participants who believed that medication is a source of harmful effects benefited from positive framing, compared to neutral framing of drug-attributed side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive framing was partially effective in decreasing specific side effect measures, particularly among participants with a tendency to believe that medicine is harmful. Informed consent procedures should therefore be personalized, focusing on patients with negative treatment beliefs.

Psychobiological Mechanisms of Placebo and Nocebo Effects: Pathways to Improve Treatments and Reduce Side Effects

Placebo effects constitute a major part of treatment success in medical interventions. The nocebo effect also has a major impact, as it accounts for a significant proportion of the reported side effects for many treatments. Historically, clinical trials have aimed to reduce placebo effects; however, currently, there is interest in optimizing placebo effects to improve existing treatments and in examining ways to minimize nocebo effects to improve clinical outcome. To achieve these aims, a better understanding of the psychological and neurobiological mechanisms of the placebo and nocebo response is required. This review discusses the impact of the placebo and nocebo response in health care. We also examine the mechanisms involved in the placebo and nocebo effects, including the central mechanism of expectations. Finally, we examine ways to enhance placebo effects and reduce the impact of the nocebo response in clinical practice and suggest areas for future research.

Placebo Effect in the Treatment of Depression and Anxiety

The aim of this review is to evaluate the placebo effect in the treatment of anxiety and depression. Antidepressants are supposed to work by fixing a chemical imbalance, specifically, a lack of serotonin or norepinephrine in the brain. However, analyses of the published and the unpublished clinical trial data are consistent in showing that most (if not all) of the benefits of antidepressants in the treatment of depression and anxiety are due to the placebo response, and the difference in improvement between drug and placebo is not clinically meaningful and may be due to breaking blind by both patients and clinicians. Although this conclusion has been the subject of intense controversy, the current article indicates that the data from all of the published meta-analyses report the same results. This is also true of recent meta-analysis of all of the antidepressant data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the process of seeking drug approval. Also, contrary to previously published results, the new FDA analysis reveals that the placebo response has not increased over time. Other treatments (e.g., psychotherapy and physical exercise) produce the same benefits as antidepressants and do so without the side effects and health risks of the active drugs. Psychotherapy and placebo treatments also show a lower relapse rate than that reported for antidepressant medication.

Pain Modulation: From Conditioned Pain Modulation to Placebo and Nocebo Effects in Experimental and Clinical Pain

Accumulating evidence reveal important applications of endogenous pain modulation assessment in healthy controls and in patients in clinical settings, as dysregulations in the balance of pain modulatory circuits may facilitate pain and promote chronification of pain. This article reviews data on pain modulation, focusing on the mechanisms and translational aspects of pain modulation from conditioned pain modulation (CPM) to placebo and nocebo effects in experimental and clinical pain. The specific roles of expectations, learning, neural and neurophysiological mechanisms of the central nervous system are briefly reviewed herein. The interaction between CPM and placebo systems in pain inhibitory pathways is highly relevant in the clinic and in randomized controlled trials yet remains to be clarified. Examples of clinical implications of CPM and its relationship to placebo and nocebo effects are provided. A greater understanding of the role of pain modulation in various pain states can help characterize the manifestation and development of chronic pain and assist in predicting the response to pain-relieving treatments. Placebo and nocebo effects, intrinsic to every treatment, can be used to develop personalized therapeutic approaches that improve clinical outcomes while limiting unwanted effects.

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

Treatment-related expectations are important predictors for placebo effects in various medical conditions. They are formed by verbal and nonverbal cues during the administration of treatments, such as verbal suggestions, conscious and unconscious associations with previous treatments, characteristics of patients and health-care providers as well as perceptual characteristics of the treatment. This review provides an overview of studies that aimed to elucidate the impact of treatment characteristics on expectations and placebo effects. Results show that high price, brand label, the use of invasive placebos and high placebo dose increase the expectations toward the beneficial effect of a placebo treatment, which in turn boost the placebo effect. Neuroimaging studies provide first insights into the neurobiological mechanisms underlying these differential placebo effects.

Is the rationale more important than deception? A randomized controlled trial of open-label placebo analgesia

Research on open-label placebos questions whether deception is a necessary characteristic of placebo effects. Yet, comparisons between open-label and deceptive placebos (DPs) are lacking. We therefore assessed effects of open-label placebos and DPs in comparison with no treatment (NT) with a standardized experimental heat pain paradigm in a randomized controlled trial in healthy participants. Participants (N = 160) were randomly assigned to NT, open-label placebo without rationale (OPR-), open-label placebo with rationale (OPR), and DP. We conducted baseline and posttreatment measurements of heat pain threshold and tolerance. Apart from the NT, all groups received an application of a placebo cream. Primary outcomes were planned comparisons of heat pain tolerance and the corresponding intensity and unpleasantness ratings. Objective posttreatment pain tolerance did not differ among groups. However, for subjective heat pain ratings at the posttreatment tolerance level, groups with a rationale (OPR and DP) reported diminished heat pain intensity (t(146) = -2.15, P = 0.033, d = 0.43) and unpleasantness ratings (t(146) = -2.43, P = 0.016, d = 0.49) compared with the OPR-group. Interestingly, the OPR and the DP groups did not significantly differ in heat pain intensity (t(146) = -1.10, P = 0.272) or unpleasantness ratings (t(146) = -0.05, P = 0.961) at the posttreatment tolerance level. Our findings reveal that placebos with a plausible rationale are more effective than without a rationale. Even more, open-label placebos did not significantly differ in their effects from DPs. Therefore, we question the ubiquitously assumed necessity of concealment in placebo administration.

No increase in 6-week treatment effect of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy with the use of the LUMOback in people with non-acute non-specific low back pain and a directional preference of extension: a pilot randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To pilot the methods for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to investigate whether the treatment effect of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) is enhanced with the LUMOback.

DESIGN

Assessor blinded RCT with 3 and 6-week follow-ups.

SETTING

An outpatient clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

Primary eligibility criteria were: a directional preference of lumbar extension, ≥18years of age, and non-specific low back pain lasting for ≥1month.

INTERVENTIONS

The MDT group undertook extension exercises (10reps/3hour) and postural correction using a lumbar roll at home. The MDT+LUMOback group also wore the LUMOback daily, providing a vibration alert in a slouched posture.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Global Rating of Change Scale (GRCS) (0-6), recruitment rate per month, treatment sessions, compliance rate of wearing the LUMOback, participants' adherence with treatment, dropout rate and the stage of the MDT program at six weeks.

RESULTS

Twenty-two participants were included for 20 months (a recruitment rate of 1.1 patient/month). Dropout rate was 9%. The mean (SD) of the GRCS of the MDT and MDT+LUMOback groups were 4.7 (0.8) and 4.7 (0.5) at the 3-week follow-up and were both 4.9 (0.5) at the 6-week follow-up. The patients undertook a mean of 6.7 sessions for six weeks and exercises with mean of 3.7set/day in each group. The mean compliance rate of wearing the LUMOback was 88%. Nobody was discharged from the intervention with full recovery within six weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Data indicated a promising method for the full RCT, but a rationale for the full RCT was not justified.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000018380.

Can knowledge of Placebo and Nocebo Mechanisms Help Improve Randomized Clinical Trials?

Over the last decade, there has been a substantial increase in negative results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which may be due to an increasing placebo response among other factors. Currently, identification and exclusion of placebo responders from trials are attempted to overcome this problem, but so far the success of these approaches has been limited. At the same time, the placebo-mechanism literature has highlighted how contextual factors, such as patients' expectations, interfere with the effect of drug administration, leading to a certain degree of uncertainty in RCTs. In this chapter, we review the current challenges of RCTs including the uncertainties of the active arm, the placebo arm, the additivity assumption, and the double-blind procedure. We use the placebo-mechanism literature to debate the strengths and weaknesses of attempts to identify and exclude placebo responders from trials. Finally, we illustrate how insights from the placebo-mechanism literature may point to new ways of improving RCTs.

Side effects can enhance treatment response through expectancy effects: an experimental analgesic randomized controlled trial

In randomized controlled trials, medication side effects may lead to beliefs that one is receiving the active intervention and enhance active treatment responses, thereby increasing drug-placebo differences. We tested these hypotheses with an experimental double-blind randomized controlled trial of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug with and without the addition of atropine to induce side effects. One hundred healthy volunteers were told they would be randomized to either combined analgesics that might produce dry mouth or inert placebos. In reality, they were randomized double blind, double-dummy to 1 of the 4 conditions: (1) 100 mg diclofenac + 1.2 mg atropine, (2) placebo + 1.2 mg atropine, (3) 100 mg diclofenac + placebo, or (4) placebo + placebo, and tested with heat-induced pain. Groups did not differ significantly in demographics, temperature producing moderate pain, state anxiety, or depression. Analgesia was observed in all groups; there was a significant interaction between diclofenac and atropine, without main effects. Diclofenac alone was not better than double-placebo. The addition of atropine increased pain relief more than 3-fold among participants given diclofenac (d = 0.77), but did not enhance the response to placebo (d = 0.09). A chain of mediation analysis demonstrated that the addition of atropine increased dry mouth symptoms, which increased beliefs that one had received the active medication, which, in turn, increased analgesia. In addition to this indirect effect of atropine on analgesia (via dry mouth and beliefs), analyses suggest that among those who received diclofenac, atropine directly increased analgesia. This possible synergistic effect between diclofenac and atropine might warrant future research.

The use of prescription medication in 239 patients with multiple functional somatic syndromes

OBJECTIVE

To describe the use of prescription drugs and their association with patient characteristics in patients with multiple functional somatic syndromes (FSS) focusing on drugs generally recommended and not recommended in FSS treatment.

METHOD

Using data from a national prescription registry, we describe the drug use during a two-year period for 239 trial participants. Using regression models, we analyse the associations of patient characteristics with the patterns of use of antidepressants, anticonvulsants, opioids and sedatives.

RESULTS

The use of prescription drugs was highly heterogeneous. Antidepressants were used at least temporarily by 34% (88/239), anticonvulsants by 7% (16/239), opioids by 26% (61/239) and sedatives by 20% (47/239) of the patients. Severe impairment due to multiple FSS was associated with use of opioids or sedatives (OR 6.49 (95% CI 2.68-15.68; p < 0.001)) but also with use of antidepressants or anticonvulsants (OR 3.42 (95% CI 1.35-8.65; p = 0.009)). Poor self-reported physical health, additional physical comorbidities and low socioeconomic status were associated with use of opioids or sedatives only.

CONCLUSION

Antidepressants and anticonvulsants were modestly used. Opioids and sedatives were especially used by the severely affected patients. Balancing treatment expectations and enhancing patients' understanding of FSS may direct treatments towards more generally recommended drugs.

It's all a matter of necessity and concern: A structural equation model of adherence to antihypertensive medication

OBJECTIVE

Hypertension is often treated pharmacologically, yet adherence is poor. Beliefs about antihypertensive medicine, i.e., the necessity-concern framework (NCF), are valuable for explaining adherence. Therefore, a model structure is transferred from hypercholesterolemia to hypertension, assuming a mediating role of the NCF.

METHODS

Patients with hypertension (n=273) were surveyed online about demographics, health- and treatment-related factors, control beliefs, necessity and concern beliefs about their medication, and adherence. The data were analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM).

RESULTS

Necessity was positively (β=0.26, p=0.009) and concern was negatively (β=-0.51, p=0.020) associated with adherence. The NCF mediated the influence of background variables on adherence. Necessity was associated with comorbidity (β=-0.36, p<0.001), treatment time (β=0.19, p=0.004), emotionally supportive doctor-patient communication (β=0.12, p=0.045), side effects (β=0.16, p=0.013), personal control (β=-0.13, p=0.022), and treatment control (β=0.29, p<0.001). Concern was associated with side effects (β=0.38, p<0.001) and beliefs about medicine in general being harmful (β=0.61, p<0.001). The model fit was acceptable (RMSEA=0.61).

CONCLUSION

The transferred adherence model with the necessity-concern framework as a mediating factor was confirmed in hypertension, explaining more variance than previous approaches (23%).

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A personalized, emotionally supportive doctor-patient communication could be key to addressing beliefs about medicine and therefore to increasing adherence.

Mechanisms of Perceived Treatment Assignment and Subsequent Expectancy Effects in a Double Blind Placebo Controlled RCT of Major Depression

Objective: It has been suggested that patients' perception of treatment assignment might serve to bias results of double blind randomized controlled trials (RCT). Most previous evidence on the effects of patients' perceptions and the mechanisms influencing these perceptions relies on cross-sectional associations. This re-analysis of a double blind, placebo controlled RCT of pharmacological treatment of major depression set out to gather longitudinal evidence on the mechanism and effects of patients' perceived treatment assignment in the pharmacological treatment of major depression. Methods: One-hundred eighty-nine outpatients with DSM-IV diagnosed major depression were randomized to SAMe 1,600-3,200 mg/d, escitalopram 10-20 mg/days, or placebo for 12 weeks. Data on depressive symptoms (17-item Hamilton Depression Scale; HDRS-17), adverse events and patients' perceived treatment assignment was collected at baseline, week 6, and week 12. The re-analysis focused on N = 166 (out of the originally included 189 participants) with available data on perceived treatment assignment. Results: As in the parent trial, depressive symptoms (HDRS-17) significantly decreased over the course of 12 weeks and there was no difference between placebo, SAMe or escitalopram. A significant number of patients changed their perceptions about treatment assignment throughout the trial, especially between baseline and week 6. Improvement in depressive symptoms, but not adverse events significantly predicted perceived treatment assignment at week 6. In turn, perceived treatment assignment at week 6, but not actual treatment, predicted further improvement in depressive symptoms at week 12. Conclusions: The current results provide longitudinal evidence that patients' perception of treatment assignment systematically change despite a double blind procedure and in turn might trigger expectancy effects with the potential to bias the validity of an RCT. Parent study grant number: R01 AT001638 Parent study ClinicalTrials. gov Identifier: NCT00101452.

Comparing watchful waiting with antidepressants for the management of subclinical depression symptoms to mild-moderate depression in primary care: a systematic review

Background

The benefits of watchful waiting (WW) over antidepressants (ADs) for the treatment of depression in primary care (PC) are unclear.

Objective

We aimed to systematically review the evidence supporting either WW or ADs for the treatment of subclinical depressive symptoms and mild-moderate depression in a PC setting.

Methods

This systematic review was registered at PROSPERO (42016036345). Four electronic sources (EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge) were systematically searched from inception to November 2016 for controlled trials comparing WW and ADs in PC following established guidelines. The studies had to include adult population with new symptoms of subclinical depression or mild-moderate depression. Patients in the intervention group should receive a WW approach, while patients in the control group underwent treatment with ADs. The abstraction form included information on the setting, characteristics of the study population, total sample size, size of the control and intervention groups and date of the study. Outcome measures and variability were extracted.

Results

The scarcity of studies and the considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity discouraged us from performing a meta-analysis. Three articles were included and qualitatively synthesized. There was no evidence for the superiority of one treatment option over the other, although two of the studies suggested small differences in favour of ADs when less conservative analyses were conducted (per protocol analysis and analysis not adjusted for missingness predictors).

Conclusions

Superiority was not demonstrated by either treatment option. More robust evidence is needed to inform recommendations for the management of depressive symptoms in PC.