Nocebo in clinical trials for depression: a meta-analysis

Should rTMS be considered a first-line treatment for major depressive episodes in adults?

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is an epidemic with rising social, economic, and political costs. In a patient whose major depressive episode (MDE) persists through an adequate antidepressant trial, insurance companies often cover alternative treatments which may include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). RTMS is an FDA-cleared neuromodulation technique for TRD which is safe, efficacious, noninvasive, and well-tolerated. Recent developments in the optimization of rTMS algorithms and targeting have increased the efficacy of rTMS in treating depression, improved the clinical convenience of these treatments, and decreased the cost of a course of rTMS. In this opinion paper, we make a case for why conventional FDA-cleared rTMS should be considered as a first-line treatment for all adult MDEs. RTMS is compared to other first-line treatments including psychotherapy and SSRIs. These observations suggest that rTMS has similar efficacy, fewer side-effects, lower risk of serious adverse events, comparable compliance, the potential for more rapid relief, and cost-effectiveness. This suggestion, however, would be strengthened by further research with an emphasis on treatment-naive subjects in their first depressive episode, and trials directly contrasting rTMS with SSRIs or psychotherapy.

Exploratory study of nocebo effect in senior medical students

Background

Νocebo Effect is known to induce adverse symptoms after negative expectations which can be manifested on a physical and psychological level. As 6th year medical students often face a wide range of clinical challenges and may be prone to negative expectations or beliefs affecting their pre-clinical and clinical success, we want to investigate how they are affected by the Nocebo Effect.

Objective

To investigate whether a nocebo effect can be induced when exposing final-year students to the clinical context of their training.

Methods

We used verbal suggestions as a nocebo mechanism and by using three tools, the Illness Attitude Scales, the Symptom Checklist-90, and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, we examined the difference in scores on measures of psychometric parameters in 33 participants who were on their 6th year medical and attended three clinics for the first time during their education. The administrations were given before and after attending each clinic, and negative verbal suggestions were given prior to the first administration. We also measured whether the overall number of clinics, had an effect on psychometric parameters.

Results

The results revealed a significant increase in second administration overall in the three clinics in specific psychometric parameters but no statistically significant difference was observed after attending consecutive clinics.

Conclusion

Students reported the occurrence of adverse symptoms in the investigated psychometric parameters, which should be noted in order to avoid potential educational clinical failure.

The Nocebo Effect

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

Nocebo-associated treatment discontinuation with subcutaneous anti-osteoporotic drugs. A systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-arm dropouts in randomized-controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Nocebo is a concept of therapeutics referring to unpleasant symptoms attributed by a patient to a drug, due to negative anticipation. Patients receiving oral anti-osteoporotic drugs in randomized controlled trials (RCT) can experience adverse events leading to dropout, implying that nocebo contributes to treatment discontinuation for these drugs. In this study we aim to investigate the nocebo effect of subcutaneous anti-osteoporotic drugs with a higher compliance rate than orally administered drugs.

STUDY DESIGN

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases for double-blind trials investigating subcutaneous anti-osteoporotic drugs for osteoporosis (namely, denosumab, teriparatide, abaloparatide and romosozumab) published up to May 2023.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Dropouts due to reported adverse events in the placebo arms ("nocebo dropouts").

RESULTS

Data from 17 trials were extracted. Among 10,529 placebo-treated patients the pooled nocebo-dropout percentage was 3 % for denosumab (average: 0.03; 95 % CI: 0.01-0.05), 1 % for romosozumab (average: 0.01; 95 % CI: 0.00-0.03) and 6 % for teriparatide and abaloparatide (average: 0.06; 95 % CI: 0.05-0.07). Nocebo-dropouts were significantly higher in men than women (6 % vs. 3 %, respectively, p = 0.012), in older (mean age >68 years) than in younger patients (5 % vs. 1 %, respectively, p = 0.017) and in those with more severe osteoporosis (based on the percentage of participants with prior fragility-related fractures in the study cohort) compared with patients with no prior fracture history (4 % vs. 1 %, respectively, p = 0.046).

CONCLUSION

Nocebo responses may contribute to treatment discontinuation with subcutaneous anti-osteoporotic drugs in clinical practice. Higher nocebo-related dropout rates in the higher-risk RCT population (older patients, males, those with prior fractures) show that nocebo mechanisms have the potential to hinder therapeutic efforts to specific populations who would benefit most. Prospero registration number CRD42020212843.

The relationship between expectancy, anxiety, and the nocebo effect: a systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for future research

Despite the theoretical prominence of expectancy and anxiety as potential mechanisms of the nocebo effect, not all studies measure expectancy and/or anxiety, and there are inconsistent findings among those that do. The present study sought to systematically review and meta-analyse available data to evaluate the relationship between expectancy, anxiety and the nocebo effect. The two key questions were: (1) whether nocebo manipulations influence expectancy and anxiety; and (2) whether expectancy and anxiety are associated with the subsequent nocebo effect. Fifty-nine independent studies (n = 3129) were identified via database searches to 1st August 2021. Nocebo manipulations reliably increased negative expectancy with a large effect (g = .837) and state anxiety with a small effect (g = .312). Changes in expectancy and state anxiety due to the nocebo manipulation were associated with larger nocebo effects (r = .376 and .234, respectively). However, there was no significant association between dispositional anxiety and the nocebo effect. These findings support theories that rely on situationally-induced expectancy and anxiety, but not dispositional anxiety, to explain nocebo effects. Importantly, being malleable, these findings suggest that interventions that target maladaptive negative expectancies and state anxiety could be beneficial for reducing the harm nocebo effects cause across health settings. Recommendations for future research are discussed.

Incidence of adverse events and comparative tolerability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors for the treatment of anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and stress disorders: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) show similar efficacy as treatments for anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and stress-related disorders. Hence, comparisons of adverse event rates across medications are an essential component of clinical decision-making. We aimed to compare patterns of adverse events associated with SSRIs and SNRIs in the treatment of children and adults diagnosed with these disorders through a network meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane, websites of regulatory agencies, and international registers from inception to 09 September 2022, for randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of SSRIs or SNRIs. We analyzed the proportion of participants experiencing at least one adverse event and incidence rates of 17 specific adverse events. We estimated incidence rates and odds ratios through network meta-analysis with random effects and three-level models. We analyzed 799 outcome measures from 80 studies (n = 21 338). Participants in medication groups presented higher rates of adverse events (80.22%, 95% CI 76.13-83.76) when compared to placebo groups (71.21%, 67.00-75.09). Nausea was the most common adverse event (25.71%, CI 23.96-27.54), while weight change was the least common (3.56%, 1.68-7.37). We found higher rates of adverse events of medications over placebo for most medications, except sertraline and fluoxetine. We found significant differences between medications for overall tolerability and for autonomic, gastrointestinal, and sleep-related symptoms. Adverse events are a common reason that patients discontinue SSRIs and SNRIs. Results presented here guide clinical decision-making when clinicians weigh one medication over another. This might improve treatment acceptability and compliance.

Amplified gut feelings under inflammation and depressed mood: A randomized fMRI trial on interoceptive pain in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND

Inflammation and depressed mood constitute clinically relevant vulnerability factors for enhanced interoceptive sensitivity and chronic visceral pain, but their putative interaction remains untested in human mechanistic studies. We tested interaction effects of acute systemic inflammation and sad mood on the expectation and experience of visceral pain by combining experimental endotoxemia with a mood induction paradigm.

METHODS

The double-blind, placebo-controlled, balanced crossover fMRI-trial in N=39 healthy male and female volunteers involved 2 study days with either intravenous administration of low-dose lipopolysaccharide (LPS, 0.4ng/kg body weight; inflammation condition) or saline (placebo condition). On each study, day two scanning sessions were conducted in an experimentally induced negative (i.e., sad) and in a neutral mood state, accomplished in balanced order. As a model of visceral pain, rectal distensions were implemented, which were initially calibrated to be moderately painful. In all sessions, an identical series of visceral pain stimuli was accomplished, signaled by predictive visual conditioning cues to assess pain anticipation. We assessed neural activation during the expectation and experience of visceral pain, along with unpleasantness ratings in a condition combining an inflammatory state with sad mood and in control conditions. All statistical analyses were accomplished using sex as covariate.

RESULTS

LPS administration led to an acute systemic inflammatory response (inflammation X time interaction effects for TNF-α, IL-6, and sickness symptoms, all p<.001). The mood paradigm effectively induced distinct mood states (mood X time interaction, p<.001), with greater sadness in the negative mood conditions (both p<.001) but no difference between LPS and saline conditions. Significant main and interaction effects of inflammation and negative mood were observed for pain unpleasantness (all p<.05). During cued pain anticipation, a significant inflammation X mood interaction emerged for activation of the bilateral caudate nucleus and right hippocampus (all p_FWE<.05). Main effects of both inflammation and mood were observed in multiple regions, including insula, midcingulate cortex, prefrontal gyri, and hippocampus for inflammation, and midcingulate, caudate, and thalamus for mood (all p_FWE<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Results support an interplay of inflammation and sad mood on striatal and hippocampal circuitry engaged during visceral pain anticipation as well as on pain experience. This may reflect a nocebo mechanism, which may contribute to altered perception and interpretation of bodily signals. At the interface of affective neuroscience and the gut-brain axis, concurrent inflammation and negative mood may be vulnerability factors for chronic visceral pain.

Nocebo response in dentistry: A systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse events in analgesic trials of third molar removal

BACKGROUND

The nocebo response refers to the phenomenon where non-specific factors, including negative verbal suggestion and treatment expectations, cause adverse events (AE) following a placebo treatment. Non-specific factors are also likely to influence AE occurrence following administration of active pharmacological treatments.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the nocebo response in dentistry by assessing the AEs prevalence in placebo- and active arms of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing analgesic treatment following third molar (M3) surgery.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies had to report the number of patients experiencing at least one drug-related AE (patients with AE ≥ 1) separately for the active and placebo arms. The proportion of patients with AE ≥ 1 and drug-related dropouts were pooled, and risk differences (RDs) between patients in the placebo- and active arm were calculated.

RESULTS

In 50 independent RCTs of 47 identified articles, the pooled rates of patients with AE ≥ 1 were 22.8% in the placebo arm and 20.6% in the active arm. The pooled rates of drug-related dropout were 0.24% in the placebo arm and 0.08% in the active arm. There were no significant RDs in patients with AE ≥ 1 and drug-related dropouts.

CONCLUSION

These results show that patients in the placebo arm reported AEs to the same extent as patients receiving active treatment, suggesting that most AEs in analgesic medication following M3 surgery may be attributed to the nocebo phenomenon.

Meta-analysis of placebo-arm dropouts in osteoporosis randomized-controlled trials and implications for nocebo-associated discontinuation of anti-osteoporotic drugs in clinical practice

Dropout from placebo arms in randomized-controlled trials is a surrogate for nocebo responses, resulting from patients' negative expectations to treatment. Among 16,460 placebo-treated patients in oral anti-osteoporotic drug trials, nocebo dropouts were 8% on average, being higher in older patients. This implies that nocebo may contribute to the osteoporosis treatment gap in clinical practice.

PURPOSE

Osteoporosis is a common disease requiring long-term treatment. Despite the availability of effective anti-osteoporotic drugs, adherence to treatment is low. Nocebo, a behavior mostly related to the negative expectations to a certain treatment, decreases adherence and negatively affects treatment outcomes and health-related care costs in chronic diseases. Since in double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials any unfavorable outcome leading to discontinuation in placebo arms is considered as nocebo, we aimed to investigate the size of nocebo response in patients participating in osteoporosis trials.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases for dropouts due to reported adverse events in the placebo arms (nocebo dropouts) in all double-blind trials investigating anti-osteoporotic drugs published between January 1993 and March 2022. Only data on bisphosphonates and selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) were analyzed (Prospero registration number CRD42020212843).

RESULTS

Data from 44 trials were extracted. In 16,460 placebo-treated patients, the pooled nocebo-dropout was 8% both for bisphosphonates (average: 0.08; range 0.01-0.27; 95%CI 0.06-0.10) and SERMs (average: 0.08; range 0.03-0.15; 95%CI 0.05-0.13). Nocebo-dropouts were higher in bisphosphonate trials enrolling individuals ≥ 65 years (11%) (n = 18) compared to trials enrolling younger individuals (6%) (n = 18) (average: 0.11; 95%CI 0.08-0.13 vs. average: 0.06; 95%CI 0.05-0.08, respectively, p = 0.001). Participants' sex, dosing-intervals, publication year, or severity of osteoporosis had no impact on the nocebo-dropouts.

CONCLUSION

Almost 1 in 10 osteoporosis patients receiving placebo in trials of bisphosphonates and SERMs experiences AEs leading to dropout, implying that nocebo contributes to treatment-discontinuation in clinical practice. Efforts to identify and minimize nocebo, especially in older patients, are warranted.

The lessebo effect in randomized controlled trials of rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to assess the impact of negative expectations associated with receiving a placebo (the lessebo effect) on efficacy outcomes in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis on the American College of Rheumatology 20%, 50%, and 70% (ACR20, 50, 70) response rates in the placebo and active (biosimilar)-controlled groups (reference-pbo and reference-bs) of rituximab showing an insufficient response to methotrexate or tumor necrosis factor. We evaluated the difference in ACR20, 50, 70 response rates between the two groups (reference-bs vs. reference-pbo).

RESULTS

Nine RCTs included a total of 2734 patients with RA. The pooled incidence of ACR20 response rate in the placebo- and active-controlled groups of the rituximab RCTs for RA was 53.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 49.9-56.3%) and 75.0% (95% CI 71.2-78.4%), respectively. The difference in the ACR20 response rate between the placebo- and active-controlled groups was -20.9% (95% CI -26.9 to 61.9%, p < 0.001). The pooled incidence of ACR50 response rate in the placebo- and active-controlled groups of the rituximab RCTs for RA was 29.0% (95% CI 26.2-32.0%) and 47.4% (95% CI 43.2-51.6%), respectively. The ACR50 response rates were significantly higher in the active-controlled groups than in the placebo-controlled groups (-18.4%; 95% CI -18.4 to -13.4%, p < 0.001). The difference in the ACR70 response rate between the placebo- and active-controlled groups was -14.9% (95% CI -22.2 to -7.6%, p < 0.001). The ACR20, 50, 70 response rates were significantly higher in the active-controlled groups than in the placebo-controlled group.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the use of a placebo can be associated with a clinically significant reduction in the magnitude of change of the ACR20, 50, 70 response rates in rituximab RCTs for RA. The lessebo effect has potential implications for the development of new treatments and appraisal of current treatment options for RA.

Placebo and nocebo responses in randomized controlled trials of non-tumor necrosis factor biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis showing insufficient response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the frequency and magnitude of placebo and nocebo responses in placebo-controlled RCTs of non-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with insufficient response to TNF inhibitors.

METHODS

A meta-analysis on rates of placebo response, adverse effects (AEs), severe AEs (SAEs), and withdrawal due to AEs in placebo-controlled RCTs of non-TNF biologics and JAK inhibitors in patients with RA and an insufficient response to TNF inhibitors was conducted.

RESULTS

In 9 RCTs containing 3442 patients the pooled incidence of ACR20 response rate in placebo-treated patients was 22.1 (95% CI 16.4-29.1%) and 27.9% (95% CI 24.5-31.6%) in RCTs of non-TNF and JAK inhibitors, respectively. Strong negative correlation was observed between ACR20 response and AE rates in the placebo arm, indicating that the greater the placebo response, the weaker the nocebo response (r = -0.762, P = 0.017). Strong positive correlation was observed between ACR20 response in the placebo and active comparator arms, indicating that the greater the placebo response, the greater the treatment response (r = 0.737, P = 0.003). The pooled estimate in placebo-treated patients with ≥1 AE was 71.8 (95% CI 57.4-82.7%) and 58.7% (95% CI 52.8-64.3%) in RCTs of non-TNF and JAK inhibitors, respectively. The pooled estimate in placebo-treated patients withdrawing due to an AE was 3.8 (95% CI 2.7-5.3%) and 4.0% (95% CI 2.7-6.0%) in RCTs of non-TNF and JAK inhibitors, respectively. Strong positive correlation was observed between AE rates in the placebo and active arms, indicating that the greater the nocebo response, the stronger the AE rate in the active arm (r = 0.855, P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

There were higher placebo and less nocebo effects of JAK vs. non-TNF inhibitors in RA patients with an insufficient response to TNF inhibitors, and the greater the placebo response, the weaker the nocebo response and the greater the efficacy.

Nocebo vs Placebo Effects: Their Clinical Relevance

The placebo effect can be defined as any improvement of illnesses or reduction of subjective symptoms that result from interventions possessing no known physical effects. By contrast, the nocebo effect refers to undesirable symptoms or illnesses that follow interventions also lacking known physical effects. It may also play a role in chronic illnesses that lack objective confirmation. Both placebo and nocebo effects can be potent and must be understood by both practitioners and researchers for proper application in clinical medicine. Individual caregivers can apply these principles to modify results in the daily care of patients.

Nocebo Response in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression of 105 Randomized Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE

To determine nocebo response in ADHD, identify covariates modifying nocebo response, and study the relationship between nocebo response and drug safety.

METHOD

Systematic review of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCT) investigating the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for ADHD patients. The influence of covariates was studied using meta-regression.

RESULTS

A total of 105 studies with 8,743 patients in placebo arms were included. Slightly over half (55.5%) of the patients experienced adverse events (AE) while receiving placebo. Nocebo response was associated positively with age, treatment length and method for collecting AEs. Studies with the largest nocebo response showcased the greatest drug response and the best outcome for drug safety.

CONCLUSION

Nocebo response in ADHD RCTs is remarkable, showing a positive relationship with drug response, and a negative relationship with drug safety.

Placebo: a brief updated review

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

Assessing and improving public mental health literacy concerning rTMS

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has received empirical support as a viable treatment alternative for treatment-resistant major depressive disorder. Nevertheless, patients and the public-at-large may be hesitant to adopt rTMS. In three studies, we sought to (1) assess and (2) improve public perceptions of rTMS as a treatment for depression.

METHODS

In Study 1 (N = 107), we administered questionnaires on Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to individuals from the US and Canada in a cross-sectional design to assess perceptions of rTMS compared to psychopharmacology, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), and talk therapy. In Study 2 (N = 106), we again used an MTurk sample and a cross-sectional design to assess perceptions of rTMS after providing participants with a relatively long description of rTMS. In Study 3 (N = 308), we conducted an experiment in undergraduate students. Participants were randomized to one of four experimental conditions manipulating participants' understanding of the causal mechanisms of depression prior to assessing their perceptions of rTMS.

RESULTS

Public perceptions of rTMS were more negative than pharmacotherapy and talk therapy but not ECT (Study 1). rTMS perceptions were notably better when participants were given thorough information about rTMS procedures, pain, and side-effects (Study 2), compared to the previous study when they were given a very brief description of rTMS. Finally, perceptions of rTMS were significantly better when participants were given a brain circuitry-based causal explanation of depression compared to when they were given a psychological explanation of the causes of depression (Study 3).

CONCLUSIONS

Public perceptions of rTMS are relatively poor. To improve rTMS acceptability, practitioners should carefully consider patients' prior attitudes and beliefs when explaining rTMS as a treatment alternative. Given that beliefs can have powerful effects on treatment outcome (e.g., placebo, nocebo), future research should explore whether rTMS effects on depression can be improved by facilitating less negative perceptions of rTMS.

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.

Unethical informed consent caused by overlooking poorly measured nocebo effects

Unlike its friendly cousin the placebo effect, the nocebo effect (the effect of expecting a negative outcome) has been almost ignored. Epistemic and ethical confusions related to its existence have gone all but unnoticed. Contrary to what is often asserted, adverse events following from taking placebo interventions are not necessarily nocebo effects; they could have arisen due to natural history. Meanwhile, ethical informed consent (in clinical trials and clinical practice) has centred almost exclusively on the need to inform patients about intervention risks with patients to preserve their autonomy. Researchers have failed to consider the harm caused by the way in which the information is conveyed. In this paper, I argue that the magnitude of nocebo effects must be measured using control groups consisting of untreated patients. And, because the nocebo effect can produce harm, the principle of non-maleficence must be taken into account alongside autonomy when obtaining (ethical) informed consent and communicating intervention risks with patients.

Informing About the Nocebo Effect Affects Patients' Need for Information About Antidepressants-An Experimental Online Study

Relevance: Understanding patients' informational needs and adapting drug-related information are the prerequisites for a contextualized informed consent. Current information practices might rather harm by inducing nocebo effects. Objective: To investigate whether informing about the nocebo effect using a short information sheet affects patients' need for information about antidepressants. Methods: A total of 97 patients taking recently prescribed antidepressants (≤4 months intake) were recruited over the internet and randomized to receiving either a one-page written information about the nocebo effect or a control text about the history of antidepressants. After experimental manipulation, informational needs about the side effects and mechanisms of antidepressants were assessed with 3 and 7 items on categorical and 5-point Likert scales. Group differences in informational needs were calculated with Chi-square tests and ANOVAs. Results: Patients received antidepressants for depression (84.5%) and/or anxiety disorders (42.3%). Three participants (6.0%) of the nocebo group reported previous knowledge of the nocebo effect. After the experimental manipulation, participants in the nocebo group reported a reduced desire for receiving full side effect information [X ( 4 , 97 ) 2 = 12.714, Cramer's V = 0.362, p = 0.013] and agreed more frequently to the usefulness of withholding information about possible side effects [X ( 4 , 97 ) 2 = 14.878, Cramer's V = 0.392, p = 0.005]. Furthermore, they desired more information about the mechanisms of antidepressants (F = 6.373, p = 0.013, partial η2 = 0.063) and, specifically, non-pharmacological mechanisms, such as the role of positive expectations (F = 16.857, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.151). Conclusions: Learning about the nocebo effect can alter patients' informational needs toward desiring less information about the potential side effects of antidepressants and more information about general mechanisms, such as expectations. The beneficial effects of including nocebo information into contextualized informed consent should be studied clinically concerning more functional information-seeking behavior, which may ultimately lead to improved treatment outcomes, such as better adherence and reduced side effect burden.

Placebo and nocebo responses in randomized controlled trials of Janus kinase inhibitor monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis : A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this meta-analysis was to assess the frequency and magnitude of placebo and nocebo responses in placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis on the rates of placebo response, adverse effects (AEs), severe AEs (SAEs) and withdrawal due to AEs in placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of JAK inhibitor therapy for RA.

RESULTS

Five RCTs contained a total of 1422 patients (746 trial participants and 676 controls). The pooled incidence of an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response rate was 33.0% (95% CI 19.6-44.9%) in placebo-treated patients and 68.3% (95% CI 61.4-74.1%) in active drug-treated patients. A strong negative correlation was observed between drug efficacies (ACR20 response) and AE rates in the placebo arm, indicating that the stronger the placebo response, the weaker the nocebo response (r = -0.906, P = 0.034). The pooled estimate of at least one AE was 54.1% (95% CI 44.6-63.4%) in placebo-treated patients and 54.5% (95% CI 46.2-62.6%) in active drug-treated patients. The pooled SAE rate was 3.9% (95% CI 2.7-5.7%) in placebo-treated patients and 3.8% (95% CI 2.5-5.7%) in active comparator-treated patients. The pooled estimate of withdrawal owing to an AE was 4.1% (95% CI 1.4-11.3%) in placebo-treated patients and 2.1% (95% CI 0.8-5.4%) in active drug-treated patients. However, there were no differences in the pooled risk of AE, SAEs, or withdrawal owing to AEs between the active comparator and placebo groups. A strong positive correlation was observed in AE rates between the placebo and active arms, indicating that the stronger the nocebo response, the higher the AE rate in the active arm (r = 0.957, P = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

The frequency of placebo and nocebo responses was 33.0 and 54.1%, respectively, in JAK monotherapy trials for RA. The findings indicated that the strengths of placebo and nocebo responses are inversely proportional and that clinically significant differences were absent between AE, SAE, and dropout owing to AEs.

A placebo-controlled study of the effects of ayahuasca, set and setting on mental health of participants in ayahuasca group retreats

Ayahuasca is a plant concoction containing N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT) and certain β-carboline alkaloids from South America. Previous research in naturalistic settings has suggested that ingestion of ayahuasca can improve mental health and well-being; however, these studies were not placebo controlled and did not control for the possibility of expectation bias. This naturalistic observational study was designed to assess whether mental health changes were produced by ayahuasca or by set and setting. Assessments were made pre- and post-ayahuasca sessions in 30 experienced participants of ayahuasca retreats hosted in the Netherlands, Spain, and Germany. Participants consumed ayahuasca (N = 14) or placebo (N = 16). Analysis revealed a main effect of time on symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress. Compared to baseline, symptoms reduced in both groups after the ceremony, independent of treatment. There was a main treatment × time interaction on implicit emotional empathy, indicating that ayahuasca increased emotional empathy to negative stimuli. The current findings suggest that improvements in mental health of participants of ayahuasca ceremonies can be driven by non-pharmacological factors that constitute a placebo response but also by pharmacological factors that are related to the use of ayahuasca. These findings stress the importance of placebo-controlled designs in psychedelic research and the need to further explore the contribution of non-pharmacological factors to the psychedelic experience.

IncobotulinumtoxinA for the Treatment of Blepharospasm in Toxin-Naïve Subjects: A Multi-Center, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

This study aimed to assess the efficacy/safety of incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin^®, Merz Pharmaceuticals GmbH) in botulinum neurotoxin-naïve subjects with blepharospasm. Botulinum neurotoxin-naïve subjects (≥ 12 months without botulinum neurotoxin treatment for blepharospasm) received single-dose incobotulinumtoxinA 50 U, 25 U, or placebo. Subjects were followed for 6-20 weeks (main period). Qualified subjects entered an open-label extension period and received another incobotulinumtoxinA injection (≤ 70 U). The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in the Jankovic Rating Scale (JRS) severity subscore at the main period of week 6. Other efficacy variables included changes in the Blepharospasm Disability Index score and JRS frequency subscore and sumscore. Adverse events were monitored. Sixty-one subjects were randomized (main period: incobotulinumtoxinA 50 U, n = 19; incobotulinumtoxinA 25 U, n = 22; placebo, n = 20); 39 entered the open-label extension period (9, 14, and 16 subjects from the incobotulinumtoxinA 50 U, incobotulinumtoxinA 25 U, and placebo groups [main period], respectively, changed to open-label extension period dosing). A statistically significantly greater reduction in JRS severity subscore was reported for subjects receiving incobotulinumtoxinA 50 U versus placebo (ANCOVA, least square mean difference: - 1.2, p = 0.0004). Subjects receiving incobotulinumtoxinA experienced improvements in other efficacy variables versus baseline and/or placebo. Sustained clinical improvements and low adverse event rates (22.2-42.1%) were observed. This is the second placebo-controlled, double-blind study that demonstrates favorable efficacy/safety of incobotulinumtoxinA in subjects with blepharospasm. IncobotulinumtoxinA is the first botulinum neurotoxin that could fulfill the American Academy of Neurology criteria for a Level A recommendation for blepharospasm.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01896895.

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

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

Nocebo effects and participant information leaflets: evaluating information provided on adverse effects in UK clinical trials

Background

Nocebo effects (‘negative placebo’ effects) experienced by clinical trial participants can arise from an underlying condition or through communication about side effects in the participant information leaflets (or elsewhere). Misattributing nocebo effects to the medicinal intervention can lead to participants experiencing harmful nocebo effects and may result in distortion of adverse effect reporting. However, little is known about how information on potential side effects is provided to trial participants. There is increasing concern that the way in which potential side effects in clinical trials are described to patients in participant information leaflets (PIL) can in itself cause harm by either increased anxiety, poor adherence or inducing the side effect itself. In this study, we aimed to explore these concerns and identify the way in which potential side effects from investigational medicinal products used in trials are presented in written information to potential participants.

Methods

Trials were identified from the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) clinical trial registry (a primary registry of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)). Eligible studies were placebo-controlled clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (IMP) in adults conducted in the UK. We assessed readability using the Flesch Reading Ease scale, Gunning-Fog Index and Flesch-Kincaid Grade. Data extracted from the PILs were divided into 8 predefined qualitative themes for analysis in NVivo11.

Results

Most of the patient information leaflets were ranked as ‘fairly difficult to read’ or ‘difficult to read’ according to the Flesch Reading Ease scale. All studies presented information about adverse events, whereas only a third presented information about intervention benefits. Where intervention or study benefits were presented, they were usually after adverse events (21/33, 64%).

Discussion

Participant information leaflets scored poorly on ease of readability and had more content relating to adverse effects than any potential beneficial effects. The way in which adverse events were presented was heterogeneous in terms of their likelihood and severity and the amount and level of detail provided. By comparison, potential benefits from the intervention and/or study were described less often, by shorter text, and only after information about harms.

Antidepressant-placebo differences for specific adverse events in major depressive disorder: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Adverse events (AEs) are known to occur while patients are treated with placebos, part of the so-called nocebo effect. Yet evidence is limited regarding the likelihood that specific AEs occurring with antidepressant treatment are or are not due to nocebo effects.

METHODS

This study identified 56 placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressant monotherapy for adults with major depressive disorder that reported AE rates in sufficient detail for comparison. Poisson regression analyses compared rates of AEs according to antidepressant class weighted by study population to determine which separated from placebo. A "nocebo index" was also calculated (with 0 defined as the lowest rate and 1 or higher indicating the same or greater rate of an AE in the placebo group).

RESULTS

Numerous AEs did not differ statistically between antidepressant classes and placebo including worsening psychiatric symptoms, all forms of pain, weight gain and respiratory symptoms. Nevertheless, a number of AEs were significantly more common in antidepressants than placebos across multiple antidepressant classes. These were predominantly neurological, sexual and anticholinergic effects. Several AEs that separated statistically between antidepressants and placebos nevertheless had moderate nocebo indices (≥0.5). For example, dizziness in SSRIs separated significantly from placebo (OR 1.50, 95%CI 1.13-1.99) but had a nocebo index of 0.67.

LIMITATIONS

This study relied on multiple RCTs with subtle design differences.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified several AEs that are likely the physiological result of antidepressants and many that likely represent nocebo effects. These results should inform clinical decision making and discussions with patients.

Causes of drug discontinuation in patients with major depressive disorder in China

BACKGROUND

This research was designed to investigate patient-reported and doctor-reported reasons for the discontinuation of pharmacological treatment in Chinese patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), which was part of the National Survey on Symptomatology of Depression (NSSD) from 2014 to 2015.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 649 patients who had discontinued antidepressant medications and 711 patients who had remained on them, selected from a group of 3516 candidates who have had at least one depressive episode. Differences in the two groups' sociodemographic factors, clinical characteristics, medication use, and self-reported reasons for drug discontinuation were compared via Student's t-test or chi-square test. Logistic regression analysis was then used to determine the association of all non-subjective dichotomous and ordinal categorical variables, including the additional 63 items of our physician-evaluated symptomatic assessment, with drug compliance.

RESULTS

Compared to the spontaneous drug discontinuation (SDD) group, the drug adherence (DA) group had significantly lower rates of the following: family history of mental disease (9.0% vs 13.6%), highest level of education achieved being post-graduate or above (1.6% vs 4.7%), smoking (5.8% vs 9.7%), and other health problems (33.9% vs 42.4%) (p's < 0.05). On the other hand, first-episode depression (48.5% vs 21.9%) and taking of mood stabilizer(s) (8.3% vs 5.6%) were higher in the former group than in the latter (p's < 0.05). Logistic Regression Analysis showed that five symptoms, such as depressed mood, were correlated positively with SDD, while another six symptoms, such as psychomotor retardation, were correlated negatively with it. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of this model yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.701 (95% CI, 0.673-0.729). Notably, there were three main reasons given by patients in the DA group as to why they discontinued their medication(s): (1) concern about long-term side effects (36.1%), (2) no perceived need for taking said medication(s) long-term (34.2%), and (3) believing oneself to have been cured completely (30.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The aforementioned factors may affect patient compliance and elicit maladaptive thinking even from patients with good educational backgrounds, increasing the risk of drug discontinuation. Compliance of pharmacological treatment might be improved by increasing clarification and elucidation of different symptom clusters to the patient and combating the main reasons for drug discontinuation.

Placebo and nocebo phenomena in anti- CGRP monoclonal antibody trials for migraine prevention: a meta-analysis

High placebo and low nocebo phenomena mirror high positive expectations for a novel treatment, among other reasons. In a meta-analysis aimed to identify placebo and nocebo phenomena in the placebo-controlled randomized trials (RCTs) with the monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway (anti-CGRP mAbs) all the placebo-treated patients were pooled and compared with the placebo-treated patients in RCTs with topiramate and onabotulinum toxin A (OBTA). In episodic migraine (EM), the proportion of placebo-treated patients who achieved the 50% responder rate (placebo) was 32.7% (95% CI 28.6%-37.0%) in anti-CGRP mAbs vs. 24.4% (95% CI 20.5%-28.5%) in topiramate trials. The proportion of dropouts due to adverse events in placebo-treated patients (nocebo) was 1.9% (95% CI 1.4%-2.6%) in anti-CGRP mAbs vs. 9.9% (95% CI 7.7%-12.3%) in topiramate RCTs. In chronic migraine (CM), the placebo 50% responder rate was 23.6% (95% CI 11.2%-38.8%) in anti-CGRP mAbs RCTs vs. 36.4% (95% CI 32.6%-39.3%) in RCTs with OBTA. The nocebo dropout in anti-CGRP mAbs and OBTA RCTs was 1.4% (95% CI 0.8%-2.1%) and 0.9 (95% CI 0.3%-1.7%), respectively. The stronger placebo and weaker nocebo phenomena in RCTs with anti-CGRP mAbs vs. those with topiramate in the prophylaxis of EM, may decisively determine anti-CGRP mAbs treatment success. No differences were detected between the anti-CGRP mAbs and OBTA in the treatment of CM.

Application of Item Response Theory to Model Disease Progression and Agomelatine Effect in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder

INTRODUCTION

In this paper, we studied the effect over time of agomelatine, an antidepressant drug administered in patient with major depressive disorder, through item response theory (IRT), taking into account a strong placebo effect and missing not at random. We also assessed the informativeness of the HAMD-17 scale's item.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data includes five phase III clinical trials sponsored by Servier Institute, totalling 1549 patients followed during a maximum of 1 year. At each observation, individual scores for the 17 items of the HAMD scale were recorded. The probability for each score was modelled with IRT. A non-linear mixed effects model was used to describe the evolution of the disease and was coupled with a time to event model to predict dropout. Clinical trial simulations were then used to compare placebo and active treatment. Informativeness of each item was evaluated using the Fisher information theory.

RESULTS

The best model combined an IRT model, a longitudinal model for underlying depression which describes the remission and then a possible relapse, and a hazard model for dropout depending on the evolution from baseline. The drug effect was best modelled as an effect on the remission and the relapse phases. The median predicted drop in HAMD between baseline and 6 weeks was 8.8 (90% PI, 8.3-9.2) when on placebo and 13.1 (90% PI, 12.8-13.4) when treated. Nine items were found to be the most informative.

CONCLUSION

The IRT framework allowed to characterise the evolution of depression with time and estimate the effect of agomelatine, as well as the link between symptoms and disease.

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.

Nocebo effect in myasthenia gravis: systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled clinical trials

Nocebo refers to the adverse events (AEs) experienced when taking a placebo drug and is believed to be a centrally mediated process. We sought to examine the AEs following placebo administration in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) for Myasthenia Gravis (MG) patients. A systematic literature search was performed on Medline and Web of Science for RCTs for MG pharmacological treatments. We assessed the number of placebo-treated patients reporting at least one AE and the number of dropouts because of AEs. Data were extracted from six RCTs fulfilling the search criteria. Four out of five placebo-treated participants (80.1%) reported at least one AE and one in 40 (2.4%) discontinued placebo treatment because of AE. All patients participating in the MG trials reported similar AEs independent of the study arm to which they belonged (placebo or active treatment). This meta-analysis demonstrates a low nocebo dropout rate in MG compared to central nervous system disorders.

Placebo analgesia effects across central nervous system diseases: what do we know and where do we need to go?

Placebo effects are well established in healthy participants experiencing experimental or acute pain. Yet, little is known about the mechanisms of placebo analgesia effects in patients with chronic pain and even less is known in patients suffering from central nervous system (CNS) diseases where pain is prevalent, difficult to manage, and often undertreated. This article briefly reviews the current knowledge of placebo analgesia effects in healthy participants with the aim of discussing how the mechanisms in placebo analgesia differ between healthy participants and patients. The focus will be on placebo analgesia effects in chronic pain conditions as well as in 2 CNS diseases: Alzheimer disease and Parkinson disease. Finally, strengths and weaknesses of the current knowledge will be discussed and it will be demonstrated how insights from the placebo literature may point to new ways of improving treatments among patients experiencing pain in relation to CNS diseases.

Consensus report: clinical recommendations for the prevention and management of the nocebo effect in biosimilar-treated IBD patients

BACKGROUND

The nocebo effect is a negative effect of a pharmacological or nonpharmacological medical treatment that is induced by patients' expectations, and that is unrelated to the physiological action of the treatment. The nocebo effect can negatively affect treatment outcomes.

AIM

To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the prevention and management of the nocebo effect in biosimilar-treated patients with IBD.

METHODS

The "NOCE-BIO Consensus Group" was composed of 19 members from five European countries, and with different fields of expertise. A literature review on the nocebo effect, with specific focus on information about its prevention and management in biosimilar-treated IBD patients, was performed. Preliminary statements were formulated and voted on during a consensus group meeting held in Milan, Italy, in July 2018. A statement was accepted if >75% of participants voted 4 ("agree") or 5 ("strongly agree") on a scale of 1-5.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on 11 recommendation statements. Seven statements reached consensus after one voting round and four statements reached consensus after two voting rounds. All statements were supported by very low-quality level of evidence. The panel agreed that patient-health-care provider relationship is a key driver of acceptance of biosimilars, which limits the risk of negative bias and the nocebo effect. Lack of knowledge among patients and health-care providers about the effectiveness and safety of biosimilars should be minimized. Education about biosimilars needs to be tailored to the individual patient, and positive framing is recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

The nocebo effect is under-recognised in the era of biosimilars, although it may negatively impact on the cost-savings of biosimilars. Future research should focus on the magnitude, the risk factors, the impact, and the management of the nocebo effect in biosimilars-treated IBD patients.

Safety, Tolerability, and Nocebo Phenomena During Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

The methodology used for the application of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is such that it may induce a placebo effect. Respectively, adverse events (AEs) can occur when using a placebo, a phenomenon called nocebo. The primary aim of our meta-analysis is to establish the nocebo phenomena during TMS. Safety and tolerability of TMS were also studied.

METHODS

After a systematic Medline search for TMS randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we assessed the number of patients reporting at least one AE and the number of discontinuations because of AE in active and sham TMS groups.

RESULTS

Data were extracted from 93 RCTs. The overall pooled estimate of active TMS and placebo treated patients who discontinued treatment because of AEs was 2.5% (95% CI 1.9%-3.2%) and 2.7% (95% CI 2.0%-3.5%), respectively. The pooled estimate of active TMS and placebo treated patients experiencing at least one AE was 29.3% (95% CI 19.0%-22.6%) and 13.6% (95% CI 11.6%-15.8%), respectively, suggesting that the odds of experiencing an AE is 2.60 times higher (95% CI 1.75-3.86) in the active treatment group compared to placebo (p < 0.00001). The most common AE was headache, followed by dizziness. Secondary meta-analyses in depression and psychotic disorders showed that the odds of experiencing an AE is 3.98 times higher (95% CI 2.14-7.40) and 2.93 times higher (95% CI 1.41-6.07), respectively, in the active treatment groups compared to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

TMS is a safe and well-tolerated intervention. Nocebo phenomena do occur during TMS treatment and should be acknowledged during clinical trial design and daily clinical practice.

Rapid overview of systematic reviews of nocebo effects reported by patients taking placebos in clinical trials

Background

Trial participants in placebo groups report experiencing adverse events (AEs). Existing systematic reviews have not been synthesized, leaving questions about why these events occur as well as their prevalence across different conditions unanswered.

Objectives

To synthesize the evidence of prevalence of AEs in trial placebo groups across different conditions.

To compare AEs in trial placebo groups with AEs reported in untreated groups within a subset of randomized trials.

Search methods

We searched PubMed for records with the word “nocebo” in the title and “systematic” in any field. We also contacted experts and hand-searched references of included studies.

Study eligibility

We included any systematic review of randomized trials where nocebo effects were reported. We excluded systematic reviews of non-randomized studies.

Participants and interventions

We included studies in any disease area.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods

We appraised the quality of the studies using a shortened version of the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool (AMSTAR) tool. We reported medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) of AEs. Among the trials within the review that included untreated groups, we compared the prevalence of AEs in untreated groups with the prevalence of AEs in placebo groups.

Results

We identified 20 systematic reviews. These included 1271 randomized trials and 250,726 placebo-treated patients. The median prevalence of AEs in trial placebo groups was 49.1% (IQR 25.7–64.4%). The median rate of dropouts due to AEs was 5% (IQR 2.28–8.4%). Within the 15 of trials that reported AEs in untreated groups, we found that the AE rate in placebo groups (6.51%) was higher than that reported in untreated groups (4.25%).

Limitations

This study was limited by the quality of included reviews and the small number of trials that included untreated groups.

Conclusions and implications of key findings

AEs in trial placebo groups are common and cannot be attributed entirely to natural history. Trial methodologies that reduce AEs in placebo groups while satisfying the requirement of informed consent should be developed and implemented.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-3042-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Incidence of Placebo Adverse Events in Randomized Clinical Trials of Targeted and Immunotherapy Cancer Drugs in the Adjuvant Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Several reports have associated the placebo effect with objective response and improvement of a clinical condition in oncology, but only a few studies have analyzed the adverse events (AEs) in the placebo groups of the clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence of placebo AEs reported in randomized clinical trials of modern cancer drugs in the adjuvant setting.

DATA SOURCES

Based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline, a systematic literature search of English-language publications from January 1, 2000, through April 15, 2018, was performed using MEDLINE (PubMed). The following search terms were used to retrieve all trials from the PubMed library: adjuvant, maintenance, consolidation, and placebo, in addition to specific cancer type-related keywords.

STUDY SELECTION

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 design was mandatory for study inclusion. Only studies enrolling patients who had undergone macroscopically complete resections were included. No other anticancer treatments in addition to placebo were allowed in the control group. Only trials involving a targeted therapy (tyrosine kinase, BRAF, or MEK inhibitors) or immunotherapy-related drugs were included. Trials using chemotherapy, interferon, and endocrine therapy were excluded. Two authors (D.H.E. and F.D.W.) independently reviewed the studies for inclusion.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted by investigators, and random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the proportion of grade 3 to 4 placebo AEs in the included studies.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Incidence of grade 3 to 4 placebo AEs in the placebo groups.

RESULTS

Of 731 studies screened, 10 eligible trials were found including 4 tumor types (melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, and renal cell carcinoma). Overall, 11 143 patients (6270 [56.3%] in the treatment group with mean [SD] age of 55.6 [4.2] years and 4873 patients [43.7%] in the placebo group with mean [SD] age of 55.9 [4.3] years) were included. The mean incidence of any-grade placebo AEs was 85.1% (95% CI, 79.2%-91.0%). The most frequent (mean [SD]) grade 3 to 4 placebo AEs in patients were hypertension (2.8% [2.2%]), fatigue (1.0% [0.9%]), and diarrhea (0.8% [0.6%]). The overall, random-effects pooled incidence of grade 3 to 4 placebo AEs was 18% (95% CI, 15%-21%), with a high level of heterogeneity (I2 = 86%). Frequency of grade 3 to 4 placebo AEs was found to be correlated in the treatment and placebo groups (ρ = 0.7; P = .03). Mean study drug discontinuation owing to placebo AEs was 3.9% (95% CI, 2.7%-5.2%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Placebo administration was associated with a substantial incidence of grade 3 to 4 placebo AEs in modern cancer adjuvant trials. This finding should be considered by investigators, sponsors, regulatory authorities, and patient support groups.

Non-pharmacological Effects in Switching Medication: The Nocebo Effect in Switching from Originator to Biosimilar Agent

The nocebo effect is defined as the incitement or the worsening of symptoms induced by any negative attitude from non-pharmacological therapeutic intervention, sham, or active therapies. When a patient anticipates a negative effect associated with an intervention, medication or change in medication, they may then experience either an increase in this effect or experience it de novo. Although less is known about the nocebo effect compared with the placebo effect, widespread interest in the nocebo effect observed with statin therapy and a literature review highlighting the nocebo effect across at least ten different disease areas strongly suggests this is a common phenomenon. This effect has also recently been shown to play a role when introducing a medication or changing an established medication, for example, when switching patients from a reference biologic to a biosimilar. Given the important role biosimilars play in providing cost-effective alternatives to reference biologics, increasing physician treatment options and patient access to effective biologic treatment, it is important that we understand this phenomenon and aim to reduce this effect when possible. In this paper, we propose three key strategies to help mitigate the nocebo effect in clinical practice when switching patients from reference biologic to biosimilar: positive framing, increasing patient and healthcare professionals' understanding of biosimilars and utilising a managed switching programme.

The nocebo effect: a clinical challenge in the era of biosimilars

INTRODUCTION

The nocebo effect is defined as a negative effect of a pharmacological or non-pharmacological medical treatment that is induced by patients' expectations, and that is unrelated to the physiological action of the treatment. The nocebo effect is an important clinical challenge in the current era of biosimilars. Areas covered: This review aims to answer five key questions about the nocebo effect, namely to reveal its definition, pathophysiology, clinical relevance, contributing factors, and management. Expert commentary: The nocebo effect lowers patients' quality of life and negatively affects treatment adherence rates in biosimilar-treated patients. It may negatively impact on the cost-savings of biosimilars. Health-care providers in charge of biosimilar-treated patients need to be aware of the nocebo effect and adopt strategies to minimize it. They have to be well-informed and confident about the existing evidence about biosimilars. A good patient-physician relationship will improve patients' acceptance of biosimilars, and limits the risk of inappropriate negative bias and the nocebo effect.

The Overall Diagnosis: Psychodynamic Psychiatry, Six-Minute Psychotherapy, and Patient-Centered Care

Optimal patient care in psychiatry necessitates attention to the treatment relationship and to the patient's experience as an individual. The growth of patient-centered medicine has led to an increased appreciation of the importance of the biopsychosocial formulation, the personhood of both the patient and the physician, the autonomy and authority of the patient, and the therapeutic alliance. Patient-centered medicine, developed by the seminal psychoanalytic theorist Michael Balint, has its roots in psychodynamic concepts. A psychodynamic approach to psychopharmacology improves psychiatric prescribing, and guides the psychiatrist in providing brief, limited psychotherapy, similar to that which the Balints recommended in primary care practice.

Nocebo Effect in Menière's Disease: A Meta-analysis of Placebo-controlled Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the frequency and strength of nocebo effects in trials for Menière disease (MD).

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted in PUBMED. The search terms we used were " Menière or Menière's," "treatment," and "placebo." Limitations included article type to be Clinical Trial or Randomized Controlled Trial, text availability to be Full text, Species to be Humans and Language to be English.

STUDY SELECTION

We included placebo-controlled pharmaceutical RCTs that referred specifically to MD and recruited at least 10 adults in each arm. We excluded those studies with JADAD score ≤3.

DATA EXTRACTION

Thirty-six articles were screened identifying 12 eligible studies. Studies were included after consensus of both authors.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The meta-analysis was conducted using the RevMan programme as suggested by the Cochrane Collaboration Group. Data were analyzed using a random effects model.

CONCLUSION

Nocebo is an important confounding factor of the reported AEs in RCTs for treatment of MD and subsequently in the clinical practice. The pooled estimate of the percentage of placebo-treated patients with at least one AE was 42.3% (95% CI 8.1% to 16.3%), in comparison to 53.8% (95% CI 48.0% to 59.5%) for active drug-treated patients. Reporting of RCTs in MD is suboptimal and we recommend authors to endorse the CONSORT checklist.

Physicians' beliefs about placebo and nocebo effects in antidepressants - an online survey among German practitioners

BACKGROUND

While substantial placebo and nocebo effects have been documented in antidepressant clinical trials, physicians' awareness of the nonspecific effects in routine antidepressant treatment remains unclear. The study investigated physicians' beliefs and explanatory models regarding the desired effects and undesired side effects of antidepressants, with specific emphasis on nonspecific effects accounted for by placebo and nocebo mechanisms.

METHODS

An online survey was conducted among 87 physicians (40.2% psychiatrists, 25.3% neurologists, 24.1% general practitioners, 12.6% internists, 21.8% other). The survey assessed the physician's beliefs in antidepressant effectiveness, as well as 6 explanatory models regarding antidepressant effectiveness and 8 explanatory models for the occurrence of side effects.

RESULTS

Most physicians (89.7%) believed in the effectiveness of antidepressants while acknowledging a considerable role of the placebo effect by attributing around 40% of the total effects to nonspecific factors. For both antidepressant effectiveness and the occurrence of side effects, pharmacological effects were rated as most important (93.1% and 80.5% agreement), but physicians also attributed a substantial role to the patients' expectations (63.2% and 58.6%) and experiences (60.9% and 56.3%). Concerning the physician's own role in promoting nonspecific effects in antidepressant effectiveness, highest endorsements were found for the quality of the physician-patient-relationship (58.6%) and own expectations (41.4%). When asked about side effects, fewer participants agreed that informing the patient about known side effects (25.2%) or the physicians' expectations themselves (17.2%) could induce side effects.

CONCLUSION

Physicians, when prescribing antidepressants, are generally open towards nonspecific treatment mechanisms. However, they consider their own influence as less important than the patient's side, especially when it comes to the explanation of unwanted side effects. Awareness of the possible beneficial as well as malicious role of nonspecific mechanisms should be fostered as the first step towards optimizing antidepressant treatment by promoting placebo while avoiding nocebo effects.

Types, frequencies, and burden of nonspecific adverse events of drugs: analysis of randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials

PURPOSE

Scarce studies analyzing adverse event (AE) data from randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials (RPCCTs) of selected illnesses suggested that a substantial proportion of collected AEs are unrelated to the drug taken. This study analyzed the nonspecific AEs occurring with active-drug exposure in RPCCTs for a large range of medical conditions.

METHODS

Randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials published in five prominent medical journals during 2006-2012 were searched. Only trials that evaluated orally or parenterally administered active drugs versus placebo in a head-to-head setting were selected. For AEs reported from ≥10 RPCCTs, Pearson's correlation coefficients (r) were calculated to determine the relationship between AE rates in placebo and active-drug recipients. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to compute proportions of nonspecific AEs, which were truncated at a maximum of 100%, in active-drug recipients.

RESULTS

We included 231 trials addressing various medical domains or healthy participants. For the 88 analyzed AE variables, AE rates for placebo and active-drug recipients were in general strongly correlated (r > 0.50) or very strongly correlated (r > 0.80). The pooled proportions of nonspecific AEs for the active-drug recipients were 96.8% (95%CI: 95.5-98.1) for any AEs, 100% (97.9-100) for serious AEs, and 77.7% (72.7-83.2) for drug-related AEs. Results were similar for individual medical domains and healthy participants. The pooled proportion of nonspecificity of 82 system organ class and individual AE types ranged from 38% to 100%.

CONCLUSION

The large proportion of nonspecific AEs reported in active-drug recipients of RPCCTs, including serious and drug-related AEs, highlights the limitations of clinical trial data to determine the tolerability of drugs. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Core Concepts Involving Adverse Psychotropic Drug Effects: Assessment, Implications, and Management

Adverse effects from psychiatric drugs can profoundly influence treatment adherence and outcomes. Good care involves addressing adverse effects no differently than any other component of treatment. Knowledge about adverse effect assessment and management fosters a proper context that helps clinicians not sacrifice a drug's potential therapeutic benefits because of greater concerns about its tolerability. This article provides an overview of basic concepts related to the assessment and management of suspected adverse effects from psychotropic drugs. Key points are discussed regarding clinical, pharmacogenetic, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic risk factors for treatment-emergent adverse effects, alongside recommendations for their systematic assessment.