The specific effects of prior opioid exposure on placebo analgesia and placebo respiratory depression

Prior Pain Exposure and Mere Possession of a Placebo Analgesic Predict Placebo Analgesia: Findings From a Randomized, Double-Blinded, Controlled Trial

A recent study found that merely possessing a placebo analgesic reduces pain. The current study tested for a possible moderator of this effect. Specifically, does the mere possession of a placebo analgesic affect pain for individuals with and without immediate prior experience with the pain task? Healthy participants (N = 127) were randomized to prior pain (PP) condition or without prior pain (No-PP) condition. In the PP condition, participants first did a preliminary trial of a cold pressor test (CPT) to induce direct experience with this pain stimulus. Then they were randomized to possess an inert cream described as either an analgesic cream or an anti-itch cream (pain-irrelevant control object). Participants then completed the main CPT. In the No-PP condition, participants underwent identical procedures and randomization except that they did not do a preliminary CPT, thus having no immediate prior CPT pain experience. We found a significant prior pain experience and possession status interaction effect on placebo analgesia. Participants in the No-PP condition showed evidence of lower pain when they merely possessed an analgesic cream than an anti-itch cream. Such mere possession effect was not found in the PP condition. The impact of expectancy and emotion on the underlying process are discussed. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents a novel finding that prior pain exposure and mere possession of a placebo analgesic predicted placebo analgesia. It offers a novel perspective on the time course of placebo effect. It provides practical implications on potential pain intervention for clinicians and paradigm design for researchers of placebo study.

Placebo Effect on Modulating Empathic Pain: Reduced Activation in Posterior Insula

Little evidence exists to confirm whether the sensory-related neural activity that occurs when observing others in pain is highly responsive to empathy for pain. From a perspective of intervention, the present study employed placebo manipulation with a transferable paradigm to explore whether the sensory regional activation that occurs when viewing pictures of others in pain could be modulated by the placebo effect. We first performed a screening behavioral experiment for selecting placebo responders and then entered them into a functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) experiment in which they were exposed to the same conditions as before. Participants were informed that it was equally possible to be assigned to the treatment group (placebo manipulation) or the no-treatment group (control); they all, in fact, received treatment and placebo effect would be detected by comparing placebo conditions and no-placebo control condition. Each participant experienced a phase of reinforcing placebo belief with pain in self and a phase of testing transferable placebo effect on empathy for pain. As a result, we found significant activation in sensory areas, including the posterior insula (PI) and the postcentral gyrus, and in the middle cingulate cortex while participants observed pictures of others in pain. More importantly, for the first time, we observed relieved activation in the PI modulated by the placebo effect only associated with pain pictures but not with no-pain pictures. This suggests that sensory activity in the PI might be involved in the processing for empathic pain. This new approach sheds light on research and applications in clinical settings.

The Placebo Analgesic Effect in Healthy Individuals and Patients: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The present meta-analysis investigates whether the magnitude of placebo analgesia is different in patients compared with healthy individuals and whether placebo analgesia is different in experimentally induced pain compared with clinical pain in patients.

METHODS

A literature search in Web of Science (ISI) on the terms "placebo analgesia" and "placebo analgesic" was conducted. The search resulted in 71 studies, including 4239 participants. Fifty-five studies included healthy individuals and 16 studies included patients. Of the 16 studies with patients, five studies investigated clinical pain and 11 studies investigated experimentally induced pain.

RESULTS

The average effect size was 1.24 for healthy individuals and 1.49 for patients. In the studies with patients, the average effect sizes of placebo treatment were 1.73 for experimentally induced pain and 1.05 for clinical pain. A χ test revealed that there were relatively more studies with patients compared with healthy volunteers in which there was a clinically significant reduction in pain (p = .040).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that patients benefited from placebo treatment to a greater degree than healthy individuals did and that studies on healthy individuals may underestimate the magnitude of the placebo analgesic effect in patients. Patients' clinical pain and experimentally induced pain respond to placebo to the same degree.

The Psychological Dimensions of Placebo-Studies

Abstract. The placebo effect involves a complex network of psychological variables that are often disregarded by studies enquiring into this effect. It is hence little surprising that these psychological variables confound study outcomes and that experiments investigating the placebo effect often yield radically different results. The current article identifies three categories of psychological and methodological factors that are not systematically considered in placebo research: psychological confounds (Hawthorne effects and demand effects); methodological and data-analysis issues; and clinicians’ expectancy effects. These factors are not necessarily to be seen as mere artifacts, however, because they may constitute favorable components of the placebo effect. A set of benchmark criteria is therefore proposed to allow researchers to capitalize on these components during placebo research rather than have their results confounded by them; and to allow for a more reliable interpretation of study outcomes.

Neuro-Bio-Behavioral Mechanisms of Placebo and Nocebo Responses: Implications for Clinical Trials and Clinical Practice

The placebo effect has often been considered a nuisance in basic and particularly clinical research. This view has gradually changed in recent years due to deeper insight into the neuro-bio-behavioral mechanisms steering both the placebo and nocebo responses, the evil twin of placebo. For the neuroscientist, placebo and nocebo responses have evolved as indispensable tools to understand brain mechanisms that link cognitive and emotional factors with symptom perception as well as peripheral physiologic systems and end organ functioning. For the clinical investigator, better understanding of the mechanisms driving placebo and nocebo responses allow the control of these responses and thereby help to more precisely define the efficacy of a specific pharmacological intervention. Finally, in the clinical context, the systematic exploitation of these mechanisms will help to maximize placebo responses and minimize nocebo responses for the patient's benefit. In this review, we summarize and critically examine the neuro-bio-behavioral mechanisms underlying placebo and nocebo responses that are currently known in terms of different diseases and physiologic systems. We subsequently elaborate on the consequences of this knowledge for pharmacological treatments of patients and the implications for pharmacological research, the training of healthcare professionals, and for the health care system and future research strategies on placebo and nocebo responses.

Different Placebos, Different Mechanisms, Different Outcomes: Lessons for Clinical Trials

Clinical trials use placebos with the assumption that they are inert, thus all placebos are considered to be equal. Here we show that this assumption is wrong and that different placebo procedures are associated to different therapeutic rituals which, in turn, trigger different mechanisms and produce different therapeutic outcomes. We studied high altitude, or hypobaric hypoxia, headache, in which two different placebos were administered. The first was placebo oxygen inhaled through a mask, whereas the second was placebo aspirin swallowed with a pill. Both placebos were given after a conditioning procedure, whereby either real oxygen or real aspirin was administered for three consecutive sessions to reduce headache pain. We found that after real oxygen conditioning, placebo oxygen induced pain relief along with a reduction in ventilation, blood alkalosis and salivary prostaglandin (PG)E2, yet without any increase in blood oxygen saturation (SO2). By contrast, after real aspirin conditioning, placebo aspirin induced pain relief through the inhibition of all the products of cyclooxygenase, that is, PGD2, PGE2, PGF2, PGI2, thromboxane (TX)A2, without affecting ventilation and blood alkalosis. Therefore, two different placebos, associated to two different therapeutic rituals, used two different pathways to reduce headache pain. The analgesic effect following placebo oxygen was superior to placebo aspirin. These findings show that different placebos may use different mechanisms to reduce high altitude headache, depending on the therapeutic ritual and the route of administration. In clinical trials, placebos and outcome measures should be selected very carefully in order not to incur in wrong interpretations.

Placebo Analgesia - Understanding the Mechanisms and Implications for Clinical Practice

There are neurobiological, cognitive and conditioning processes involved in placebo mechanismsMechanisms research has demonstrated that there is not one placebo effect, but manyPlacebo effects are an inherent element in routine clinical practiceModulation of placebo mechanisms in routine practice could provide an opportunity for improving clinical care.

The neuroscience of placebo effects: connecting context, learning and health

Placebo effects are beneficial effects that are attributable to the brain-mind responses to the context in which a treatment is delivered rather than to the specific actions of the drug. They are mediated by diverse processes--including learning, expectations and social cognition--and can influence various clinical and physiological outcomes related to health. Emerging neuroscience evidence implicates multiple brain systems and neurochemical mediators, including opioids and dopamine. We present an empirical review of the brain systems that are involved in placebo effects, focusing on placebo analgesia, and a conceptual framework linking these findings to the mind-brain processes that mediate them. This framework suggests that the neuropsychological processes that mediate placebo effects may be crucial for a wide array of therapeutic approaches, including many drugs.

Pain-related negative emotions and placebo analgesia

Individuals undergoing treatment for a symptom like pain expect that the treatment will reduce the pain. Many studies show that healthy volunteers or patients in pain report less pain after inactive treatment, if they believe that active medication has been administrated. The reduction of pain can be partly blocked by systemic administration of naloxone, an opioid antagonist. There is reduced central nervous system activation to painful stimuli in individuals who have been given a placebo and told it is a painkiller. These findings suggest that the expectation of pain relief generates central nervous system opioid activity that inhibits pain transmission to the cerebral cortex. Expectations may thus lead to changes in central nervous system activity that reduces pain. It is proposed that expectations activate a homeostatic system that corrects perturbations to the system via negative feedback. The nocebo effect is the opposite of the placebo effect, and is due to induction of negative emotions. Part of the treatment of many symptoms and diseases is due to autonomic adjustments controlled by the central nervous system. The involvement of emotional processes in placebo effects could have important consequences for interpretation of data from randomized controlled trials.

The elusive rat model of conditioned placebo analgesia

Recent research on human placebo analgesia has suggested the need for rodent models to further elucidate the neural substrates of the placebo effect. This series of 3 experiments therefore was performed in an attempt to develop a model of placebo analgesia in rats. In each study, female Sprague-Dawley rats received an L5 spinal nerve ligation to induce a neuropathic pain condition. Each rat then underwent a 4-day conditioning procedure in which an active analgesic drug or its vehicle (unconditioned stimulus) was associated with the following cues (conditioned stimuli): novel testing room (environmental), vanilla scent cue (olfactory), dim incandescent lighting (visual), restraint procedure/injection (tactile), and time of day and injection-test latency (temporal). The analgesics for each experiment were as follows: Experiment 1 used 90 mg/kg gabapentin, experiment 2 used 3mg/kg loperamide hydrochloride, and experiment 3 used 6 mg/kg morphine sulfate. On the following test day, half of the animals received the opposite treatment, resulting in 4 conditioning manipulations: drug/drug, drug/vehicle, vehicle/drug, and vehicle/vehicle. Nociceptive thresholds were assessed with the mechanical paw withdrawal threshold test each day after the conditioning procedure. In all 3 experiments, no significant differences were detected on test day between control and placebo groups, indicating a lack of a conditioned placebo analgesic response. Our results contrast with prior research that implies the existence of a reliable and robust response to placebo treatment. We conclude that placebo analgesia in rats is not particularly robust and that it is difficult to achieve using conventional procedures and proper experimental design.

Placebo responses on cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and respiratory organ functions

It is widely acknowledged that placebo responses are accompanied by physiological changes in the central nervous system, but little is known about placebo responses on end organ functions. The present chapter aims to fill this gap by reviewing the literature on peripheral placebo responses. Overall, there is a wide range of placebo and nocebo responses on various organ functions of the cardiovascular, the gastrointestinal system, and the respiratory system. Most of these studies used expectation paradigms to elicit placebo and nocebo responses. Expectations can affect heart rate, blood pressure, coronary diameter, gastric motility, bowel motility, and lung function. Classical conditioning can induce placebo respiratory depression after prior exposure to opioid drugs, and habitual coffee drinkers show physiological arousal in response to coffee-associated stimuli. Similar to findings in placebo pain research, peripheral placebo responses can be target specific. The autonomic nervous system is a likely candidate to mediate peripheral placebo responses. Further studies are necessary to identify the brain mechanisms and pathways involved in peripheral placebo responses.

Placebo, nocebo, and learning mechanisms

Recent substantial laboratory and theoretical research hints for different learning mechanisms regulating the formation of placebo and nocebo responses. Moreover, psychological and biological variants may play a role as modulators of learning mechanisms underlying placebo and nocebo responses. In this chapter, we present pioneering and recent human and nonhuman research that has impressively increased our knowledge of learning mechanisms in the context of placebo and nocebo effects across different physiological processes and pathological conditions.

Placebo and the new physiology of the doctor-patient relationship

Modern medicine has progressed in parallel with the advancement of biochemistry, anatomy, and physiology. By using the tools of modern medicine, the physician today can treat and prevent a number of diseases through pharmacology, genetics, and physical interventions. Besides this materia medica, the patient's mind, cognitions, and emotions play a central part as well in any therapeutic outcome, as investigated by disciplines such as psychoneuroendocrinoimmunology. This review describes recent findings that give scientific evidence to the old tenet that patients must be both cured and cared for. In fact, we are today in a good position to investigate complex psychological factors, like placebo effects and the doctor-patient relationship, by using a physiological and neuroscientific approach. These intricate psychological factors can be approached through biochemistry, anatomy, and physiology, thus eliminating the old dichotomy between biology and psychology. This is both a biomedical and a philosophical enterprise that is changing the way we approach and interpret medicine and human biology. In the first case, curing the disease only is not sufficient, and care of the patient is of tantamount importance. In the second case, the philosophical debate about the mind-body interaction can find some important answers in the study of placebo effects. Therefore, maybe paradoxically, the placebo effect and the doctor-patient relationship can be approached by using the same biochemical, cellular and physiological tools of the materia medica, which represents an epochal transition from general concepts such as suggestibility and power of mind to a true physiology of the doctor-patient interaction.

Placebo use in the United kingdom: results from a national survey of primary care practitioners

Objectives

Surveys in various countries suggest 17% to 80% of doctors prescribe ‘placebos’ in routine practice, but prevalence of placebo use in UK primary care is unknown.

Methods

We administered a web-based questionnaire to a representative sample of UK general practitioners. Following surveys conducted in other countries we divided placebos into ‘pure’ and ‘impure’. ‘Impure’ placebos are interventions with clear efficacy for certain conditions but are prescribed for ailments where their efficacy is unknown, such as antibiotics for suspected viral infections. ‘Pure’ placebos are interventions such as sugar pills or saline injections without direct pharmacologically active ingredients for the condition being treated. We initiated the survey in April 2012. Two reminders were sent and electronic data collection closed after 4 weeks.

Results

We surveyed 1715 general practitioners and 783 (46%) completed our questionnaire. Our respondents were similar to those of all registered UK doctors suggesting our results are generalizable. 12% (95% CI 10 to 15) of respondents used pure placebos while 97% (95% CI 96 to 98) used impure placebos at least once in their career. 1% of respondents used pure placebos, and 77% (95% CI 74 to 79) used impure placebos at least once per week. Most (66% for pure, 84% for impure) respondents stated placebos were ethical in some circumstances.

Conclusion and implications

Placebo use is common in primary care but questions remain about their benefits, harms, costs, and whether they can be delivered ethically. Further research is required to investigate ethically acceptable and cost-effective placebo interventions.

Handling Ibuprofen increases pain tolerance and decreases perceived pain intensity in a cold pressor test

Pain contributes to health care costs, missed work and school, and lower quality of life. Extant research on psychological interventions for pain has focused primarily on developing skills that individuals can apply to manage their pain. Rather than examining internal factors that influence pain tolerance (e.g., pain management skills), the current work examines factors external to an individual that can increase pain tolerance. Specifically, the current study examined the nonconscious influence of exposure to meaningful objects on the perception of pain. Participants (N = 54) completed a cold pressor test, examined either ibuprofen or a control object, then completed another cold pressor test. In the second test, participants who previously examined ibuprofen reported experiencing less intense pain and tolerated immersion longer (relative to baseline) than those who examined the control object. Theoretical and applied implications of these findings are discussed.

Placebo use in clinical practice by nurses in an Iranian teaching hospital

The present study was carried out to explore Iranian nurses' use of placebos in clinical practice and their knowledge and attitude towards its use. A cross-sectional, descriptive study was conducted using self-report questionnaires. All nurses working in a university hospital in Arak (n=342) were invited to participate in the study. Among 295 respondents, 221 (75%) reported that they had used at least one placebo within the past year and 179 (81%) told patients they were receiving actual medication. The most common reason and symptom for placebo use were after unjustified demand for medication and pain, respectively. Only 60 (20.33%) of the nurses believed that placebos should never be used. Results showed that most nurses in our study had used placebos and probably will continue to use them. Placebo use is viewed as ethically permissible among nurses. Some patients benefit from the placebos, but their use raises ethical questions. The role of placebo treatment, its mechanisms, and its ethics issues should be taught to nurses.

Implicit versus explicit associative learning and experimentally induced placebo hypoalgesia

The present study examined whether 1) placebo hypoalgesia can be generated through implicit associative learning (ie, conditioning in the absence of conscious awareness) and 2) the magnitude of placebo hypoalgesia changes when expectations about pain are made explicit. The temperature of heat pain stimuli was surreptitiously lowered during conditioning trials for the placebo cream and the magnitude of the placebo effect was assessed during a subsequent set of trials when the temperature was the same for both placebo and control conditions. To assess whether placebo hypoalgesia could be generated from an implicit tactile stimulus, a 2 × 2 design was used with direction of cream application as one factor and verbal information about which cream was being applied as the second factor. A significant placebo effect was observed when participants received verbal information about which cream was being applied but not following implicit conditioning alone. However, 87.5% of those who showed a placebo response as the result of implicit conditioning were able to accurately guess the order of cream application during the final trial, despite a lack of awareness about the sensory manipulation and low confidence in their ratings, suggesting implicit learning in some participants. In summary, implicit associative learning was evident in some participants but it was not sufficient to produce a placebo effect suggesting some level of explicit expectation or cognitive mediation may be necessary. Notably, the placebo response was abolished when expectations were made explicit, suggesting a delicate interplay between attention and expectation.

Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions

BACKGROUND

Placebo interventions are often claimed to substantially improve patient-reported and observer-reported outcomes in many clinical conditions, but most reports on effects of placebos are based on studies that have not randomised patients to placebo or no treatment. Two previous versions of this review from 2001 and 2004 found that placebo interventions in general did not have clinically important effects, but that there were possible beneficial effects on patient-reported outcomes, especially pain. Since then several relevant trials have been published.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary aims were to assess the effect of placebo interventions in general across all clinical conditions, and to investigate the effects of placebo interventions on specific clinical conditions. Our secondary aims were to assess whether the effect of placebo treatments differed for patient-reported and observer-reported outcomes, and to explore other reasons for variations in effect.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2008), EMBASE (1980 to March 2008), PsycINFO (1887 to March 2008) and Biological Abstracts (1986 to March 2008). We contacted experts on placebo research, and read references in the included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised placebo trials with a no-treatment control group investigating any health problem.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Trials with binary data were summarised using relative risk (a value of less than 1 indicates a beneficial effect of placebo), and trials with continuous outcomes were summarised using standardised mean difference (a negative value indicates a beneficial effect of placebo).

MAIN RESULTS

Outcome data were available in 202 out of 234 included trials, investigating 60 clinical conditions. We regarded the risk of bias as low in only 16 trials (8%), five of which had binary outcomes.In 44 studies with binary outcomes (6041 patients), there was moderate heterogeneity (P < 0.001; I(2) 45%) but no clear difference in effects between small and large trials (symmetrical funnel plot). The overall pooled effect of placebo was a relative risk of 0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.99). The pooled relative risk for patient-reported outcomes was 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.00) and for observer-reported outcomes 0.93 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.02). We found no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in four clinical conditions that had been investigated in three trials or more: pain, nausea, smoking, and depression, but confidence intervals were wide. The effect on pain varied considerably, even among trials with low risk of bias.In 158 trials with continuous outcomes (10,525 patients), there was moderate heterogeneity (P < 0.001; I(2) 42%), and considerable variation in effects between small and large trials (asymmetrical funnel plot). It is therefore a questionable procedure to pool all the trials, and we did so mainly as a basis for exploring causes for heterogeneity. We found an overall effect of placebo treatments, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.17). The SMD for patient-reported outcomes was -0.26 (95% CI -0.32 to -0.19), and for observer-reported outcomes, SMD -0.13 (95% CI -0.24 to -0.02). We found an effect on pain, SMD -0.28 (95% CI -0.36 to -0.19)); nausea, SMD -0.25 (-0.46 to -0.04)), asthma (-0.35 (-0.70 to -0.01)), and phobia (SMD -0.63 (95% CI -1.17 to -0.08)). The effect on pain was very variable, also among trials with low risk of bias. Four similarly-designed acupuncture trials conducted by an overlapping group of authors reported large effects (SMD -0.68 (-0.85 to -0.50)) whereas three other pain trials reported low or no effect (SMD -0.13 (-0.28 to 0.03)). The pooled effect on nausea was small, but consistent. The effects on phobia and asthma were very uncertain due to high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in the seven other clinical conditions investigated in three trials or more: smoking, dementia, depression, obesity, hypertension, insomnia and anxiety, but confidence intervals were wide.Meta-regression analyses showed that larger effects of placebo interventions were associated with physical placebo interventions (e.g. sham acupuncture), patient-involved outcomes (patient-reported outcomes and observer-reported outcomes involving patient cooperation), small trials, and trials with the explicit purpose of studying placebo. Larger effects of placebo were also found in trials that did not inform patients about the possible placebo intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find that placebo interventions have important clinical effects in general. However, in certain settings placebo interventions can influence patient-reported outcomes, especially pain and nausea, though it is difficult to distinguish patient-reported effects of placebo from biased reporting. The effect on pain varied, even among trials with low risk of bias, from negligible to clinically important. Variations in the effect of placebo were partly explained by variations in how trials were conducted and how patients were informed.

Does the presence of a pharmacological substance alter the placebo effect?--results of two experimental studies using the placebo-caffeine paradigm

OBJECTIVES

We employed the placebo-caffeine paradigm to test whether the presence or absence of a substance (caffeine) influences the placebo effect.

METHODS

In experiment 1 consisting of four conditions with n = 15 participants each (control, placebo, two double-blind groups, each with placebo only), we maximized the placebo effect through expectation. Effects were assessed with physiological (blood pressure, heart rate), psychomotor (response times), and well-being indicators (self-report). In experiment 2, caffeine was administered in one of the double-blind groups, and another condition was added where caffeine was given openly.

RESULTS

Effect sizes were medium to large for some outcome parameters in experiment 1 and 2, showing partial replicability of the classical placebo effect. Although not formally significant, differences between the double blind placebo conditions of the two experiments (with and without caffeine present) were medium to small. There was a significant difference (p = 0.03) between experiment 1 and experiment 2 in the physiological variables, and a near significant interaction effect between groups and experiments in the physiological variables (p = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

The question warrants further scrutiny. The presence of a pharmacological substance might change the magnitude of the placebo response.

A comprehensive review of the placebo effect: recent advances and current thought

Our understanding and conceptualization of the placebo effect has shifted in emphasis from a focus on the inert content of a physical placebo agent to the overall simulation of a therapeutic intervention. Research has identified many types of placebo responses driven by different mechanisms depending on the particular context wherein the placebo is given. Some placebo responses, such as analgesia, are initiated and maintained by expectations of symptom change and changes in motivation/emotions. Placebo factors have neurobiological underpinnings and actual effects on the brain and body. They are not just response biases. Other placebo responses result from less conscious processes, such as classical conditioning in the case of immune, hormonal, and respiratory functions. The demonstration of the involvement of placebo mechanisms in clinical trials and routine clinical practice has highlighted interesting considerations for clinical trial design and opened up opportunities for ethical enhancement of these mechanisms in clinical practice.

New insights into placebo analgesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The placebo effect is a widespread phenomenon in medicine, both in clinical trials and in routine medical practice. Most of our knowledge about the underlying psychological and physiological mechanisms comes from the study of placebo analgesia.

RECENT FINDINGS

When the correct methodological approach is used, striking placebo effects can be detected and these can be mediated by conscious anticipatory processes or unconscious conditioning mechanisms. However, it should be stressed that many improvements observed after the administration of a placebo are not real placebo effects, but different phenomena such as spontaneous remission, regression to the mean and symptom detection ambiguity. Both neuropharmacological studies and brain imaging investigations show that placebo analgesia is mediated by endogenous opioids. Moreover, we also know that during placebo analgesia other systems change their functions, like the respiratory centres and the cardiovascular system. The placebo effect has also been approached from a different perspective by administering analgesics covertly. The results show that hidden medical treatments are less effective than open ones.

SUMMARY

The understanding of the placebo effect may lead to better design of clinical trials and better medical practice. For example, it can be used in therapeutic protocols aimed at reducing drug intake.

Factors associated with the prophylactic effect of placebo injections in subjects enrolled in a study of botulinum toxin for migraine

We set out to identify predictors for the prophylactic effect of placebo injections in subjects with migraine by post hoc analysis of 81 subjects with episodic migraine receiving single-blind placebo injections in a prospective trial of botulinum toxin. Possible predictors of placebo prophylaxis were compared among placebo responders (PRs) and placebo non-responders (PNRs). There were 34 PRs (42%) and 47 PNRs (58%). Male gender [odds ratio (OR) 5.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12, 30.14, P = 0.022], a history of opioid use (OR 4.44, 95% CI 1.47, 13.41, P = 0.005) and injections in the neck/shoulders (OR 2.44, 95% CI 0.93, 3.19, P = 0.033) were associated with placebo response. Of subjects with two or more of these signs, 88% were PRs compared with 31% of subjects with one or less. Male gender, opioid use and injections in the neck/shoulders are associated with placebo prophylaxis. These findings may have important implications for the design of future clinical trials and for the clinical management of migraineurs.

Placebo theory and its implications for research and clinical practice: a review of the recent literature

Although placebo effect is a common phenomenon in medicine and research, its mechanisms are not well understood. With the advent of modern medicine, placebo became a symbol for an outdated, morally questionable practice implying deceit and paternalism. However, in recent years, there has been an increasing amount of rigorous research into the mechanisms of placebo response and placebo analgesia with most studies coming from the field of pain medicine. New theories on placebo mechanisms have shown that placebo represents the psychosocial aspect of every treatment and the study of placebo is essentially the study of psychosocial context that surrounds the patient. Therefore, its understanding is essential for researchers and all medical practitioners, particularly those dealing with patients suffering from pain, depression, and motor disorders. In this article, we review the theories on placebo mechanisms and discuss their implications for clinical practice and the design of clinical trials.

Placebo and endogenous mechanisms of analgesia

The discovery of the endogenous systems of analgesia has produced a large amount of research aimed at investigating their biochemical and neurophysiological mechanisms and their neuroanatomical localization. Nevertheless, the neurobiological acquisitions on these mechanisms have not been paralleled by behavioural correlates in humans--in other words, by the understanding of when and how these endogenous mechanisms of analgesia are activated. Until recent times one of the most studied behavioural correlates of endogenous analgesia was stress-induced analgesia, in which the activation of endogenous opioid systems is known to be involved. By contrast, today the placebo analgesic effect represents one of the best-described situations in which this endogenous opioid network is naturally activated in humans. Therefore, not only is placebo research helpful towards improving clinical trial design and medical practice, but it also provides us with a better understanding of the endogenous mechanisms of analgesia.

How prior experience shapes placebo analgesia

Some studies indicate that placebo analgesia is stronger when pre-conditioning with effective analgesic treatments is performed, thereby suggesting that the placebo response is a learning phenomenon. Here we further tested this hypothesis in order to better understand when and how previous experience affects the placebo analgesic response. To do this, we used a conditioning procedure whereby the intensity of painful stimulation was reduced surreptitiously, so as to make the subjects believe that an analgesic treatment was effective. This procedure induced strong placebo responses after minutes, and these responses, albeit reduced, lasted up to 4-7 days. In addition, in a second group of subjects we repeated the same conditioning procedure 4-7 days after a totally ineffective analgesic treatment, and found that the placebo responses were remarkably reduced compared to the first group. Thus we obtained small, medium and large placebo responses, depending on several factors, such as the previous positive or negative experience of an analgesic treatment and the time lag between the treatment and the placebo responses. We also ran extinction trials, and found that these effects did not undergo extinction in a time span of several minutes. These findings indicate that placebo analgesia is finely tuned by prior experience and these effects may last, albeit reduced, several days. These results emphasize that the placebo effect is a learning phenomenon in which many factors come into play, and may explain the large variability of the placebo responses that is found in many studies.

The Association Between Psychopathology and Placebo Analgesia in Patients with Discogenic Low Back Pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain patients have a high rate of psychopathology, comprised mainly of depression, anxiety, and high levels of neuroticism. We previously found that psychopathology is associated with increased placebo analgesia in this patient group.

OBJECTIVE

To better understand this finding in the context of other known predictors of placebo response (such as expectations for relief), we performed a detailed analysis of expectations and other possible covariates.

DESIGN

We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, crossover-designed trial of intravenous morphine vs. placebo in 60 subjects with chronic low back pain and discogenic abnormalities. Patients were stratified into three groups of psychiatric symptom severity (Low, Moderate, and High), based on composite scores on depression, anxiety for pain, and neuroticism scales. Subjects were given intravenous morphine and placebo in random order on separate visits, and completed serial pain ratings over 3 h at each session.

RESULTS

With 20 subjects per group, there were small, but significant differences between groups in baseline pain ratings. No differences were found between groups in age, gender, and radicular pain. Patients with low psychological symptomatology reported 7.7% total pain relief with placebo compared with 23.4% in the Moderate group and 23.5% in the High group (P < 0.05). Expectations were not significantly different between groups, but in the High group expectation levels predicted placebo analgesia (P < 0.001). Neuropathic pain quality was also a predictor (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that high and moderate levels of psychopathology are associated with heightened placebo analgesia in chronic low back pain patients. Expectations were only an influence in the high psychopathology group, and neuropathic pain affects placebo responses. These findings have implications for future research characterizing placebo responders.

Placebos and painkillers: is mind as real as matter?

Considerable progress has been made in our understanding of the neurobiological mechanisms of the placebo effect, and most of our knowledge originates from the field of pain and analgesia. Today, the placebo effect represents a promising model that could allow us to shed new light on mind-body interactions. The mental events induced by placebo administration can activate mechanisms that are similar to those activated by drugs, which indicates a similarity between psychosocial and pharmacodynamic effects. These new neurobiological advances are already changing our conception of how clinical trials and medical practice must be viewed and conducted.

Placeboeffekt und Bedeutung

Zusammenfassung. Der Placeboeffekt (PE) beinhaltet bedeutsame Heilmechanismen, wenn Placebos nicht alleine als Kontrollsubstanz verwendet werden. Diese sind mit Effekten tatsächlicher Interventionen vergleichbar. Viele Fragen zu den Mechanismen sind allerdings ungelöst. Dies liegt zu einem Teil in der Reduzierung psychologischer Mechanismen auf bewusste Denkinhalte. Es wird ein funktional orientierter Ansatz vorgestellt, die Persönlichkeits-System-Interaktionen-Theorie (PSI-Theorie), die psychische Funktionen und deren Dynamik beschreibt. Ihm zufolge ist der PE an ein spezifisches System gebunden, das Extensionsgedächtnis (EG) genannt wird. Es besteht aus weitgehend impliziten Netzwerken, integriert (Selbst-)Aspekte und ist eng an somatosensorische Systeme gekoppelt. Eine Reihe von (neuro-)psychologischen Befunden steht mit dieser Auffassung in Einklang. Die vorgestellten Forschungsideen erlauben ein besseres Verständnis für psychologische Mechanismen, die im therapeutischen Kontext eine Rolle spielen, aber auch für die pharmakologische Testpraxis Konsequenzen haben.

The placebo puzzle: putting together the pieces

This article outlines and assesses the main theories of the placebo effect and suggests how they might sit together in a larger model of placebo etiology. Among the approaches considered are expectancy theory, emotional change theory, classical conditioning, and the biological approach. Although these are sometimes assumed to be competing models, in many cases they shed light on different pans of the placebo puzzle. Expectancies are the core of most placebo effects in human beings. The effects of expectancies are sometimes unmediated but in other cases are mediated by changes in emotional state, immune system function, perception, or behavior. Although expectancies are implicated in most placebo effects, a small number of placebo effects may be solely attributable to nonconscious contingency learning.

The placebo effect: dissolving the expectancy versus conditioning debate

The authors review the literature on the 2 main models of the placebo effect: expectancy theory and classical conditioning. A path is suggested to dissolving the theoretical impasse that has long plagued this issue. The key is to make a clear distinction between 2 questions: What factors shape placebo effects? and What learning mediates the placebo effect? The reviewed literature suggests that classical conditioning procedures are one shaping factor but that verbal information can also shape placebo effects. The literature also suggests that conditioning procedures and other sources of information sometimes shape conscious expectancies and that these expectancies mediate some placebo effects; however, in other cases conditioning procedures appear to shape placebo effects that are not mediated by conscious cognition.

Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions

BACKGROUND

Placebo interventions are often claimed to improve patient-reported and observer-reported outcomes, but this belief is not based on evidence from randomised trials that compare placebo with no treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of placebo interventions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to 2002), EMBASE (1980 to 2002), Biological Abstracts (1986 to 2002), and PsycLIT (1887 to 2002). We contacted experts on placebo research, and read references in the included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised placebo trials with a no-treatment control group investigating any health problem.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Outcome data were available in 156 out of 182 included trials, investigating 46 clinical conditions. We found no statistically significant pooled effect of placebo in 38 studies with binary outcomes (4284 patients), relative risk 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.01). The pooled relative risk for patient-reported outcomes was 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.03) and for observer-reported outcomes 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.03). There was heterogeneity (P=0.01) but the funnel plot was symmetrical. There was no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in the four clinical conditions investigated in three trials or more: pain, nausea, smoking, and depression, but confidence intervals were wide. We found an overall effect of placebo treatments in 118 trials with continuous outcomes (7453 patients), standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.24 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.17). The SMD for patient-reported outcomes was -0.30 (95% CI -0.38 to -0.21), whereas no statistically significant effect was found for observer-reported outcomes, SMD -0.10 (95% CI -0.20 to -0.01). There was heterogeneity (P<0.001) and large variability in funnel plot results even for big trials. There was an apparent effect of placebo interventions on pain (SMD -0.25 (95% CI -0.35 to-0.16)), and phobia (SMD -0.63 (95% CI -1.17 to -0.08)); but also a substantial risk of bias. There was no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in eight other clinical conditions investigated in three trials or more: nausea, smoking, depression, overweight, asthma, hypertension, insomnia and anxiety, but confidence intervals were wide.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence that placebo interventions in general have clinically important effects. A possible small effect on continuous patient-reported outcomes, especially pain, could not be clearly distinguished from bias.

Conditioning, Expectancy, and the Placebo Effect: Comment on Stewart-Williams and Podd (2004)

Classical conditioning is included as a component in the response expectancy model of placebo responding. Though introspectable when attention is drawn to them, expectancies need not be in awareness while guiding behavior. Most placebo effects are linked to expectancies, and classical conditioning is one factor (but not the only factor) by which these expectancies can be produced and altered. Conditioned placebo effects without expectancies exist but are relatively rare in humans. The adaptive advantage of cognition is increased response flexibility. For it to convey that benefit, however, it must be capable of overriding the influence of simpler automatic processes. Thus, the higher up the phylogenetic scale, the smaller the role of nonconscious conditioning processes and the larger the role of cognition.

How the doctor's words affect the patient's brain

Clinicians have long known that context is important in any medical treatment and that the words and attitudes of doctors and nurses can have great impact on the patient. There is now experimental evidence indicating that the medical context influences specific neural systems. The importance of the context is shown by the lesser effectiveness of hidden administrations of analgesics compared with open ones. Because the placebo effect is a context effect, its study has been useful in clarifying this complex issue. There are now several lines of evidence that placebo analgesia is mediated by endogenous opioids and placebo motor improvement by endogenous dopamine. Moreover, a placebo treatment is capable of affecting many brain regions in depressed patients. All these studies, taken together, lead to a neurobiological understanding of the events occurring in the brain during the interaction between the therapist and his or her patient.

Representation of acute and persistent pain in the human CNS: potential implications for chemical intolerance

The study of pain may be relevant to the study of chemical intolerance (CI) in many ways. Pain is often reported as a symptom of CI and it is defined as a subjective experience similar to many other symptoms of CI, making its objectification difficult. Furthermore, the CNS plastic changes that underlie the development of persistent pain states and abnormal pain responses may share some similarities with those involved in the sensitization to environmental chemicals. Functional brain imaging studies in humans demonstrate that acute pain evoked by nociceptive stimulation is accompanied by the activation of a widely distributed network of cerebral structures, including the thalamus and the somatosensory, insular, and anterior cingulate cortices. Abnormal activity within these regions has been associated with the experience of pain following damage to the peripheral or central nervous system (neuropathic pain) in a number of clinical populations. In normal individuals, activity within this network is correlated with subjective pain perception, is highly modifiable by cognitive interventions such as hypnosis and attention, and has been associated with emotions. Other cognitive mediators such as expectations can also produce robust changes in pain perception (e.g., in placebo analgesia). These effects likely depend on both higher-order cerebral structures and descending mechanisms modulating spinal nociceptive activity. These psychological processes can be solicited to reduce clinical pain and we speculate that they may further attenuate or promote central mechanisms involved in the transition from acute to persistent pain states. The investigation of central determinants of subjective experience is essential to assess the possibility that higher-order brain/psychological processes modulate and/or mediate the development of persistent pain states. These factors may contribute to the development of symptoms in CI.

Somatotopic activation of opioid systems by target-directed expectations of analgesia

We induced specific expectations of analgesia on four different parts of the body to understand how endogenous opioid systems are activated by expectancies. The left hand, right hand, left foot, and right foot were simultaneously stimulated by means of a subcutaneous injection of capsaicin, which produces a painful burning sensation. Specific expectations of analgesia were induced by applying a placebo cream on one of these body parts and by telling the subjects that it was a powerful local anesthetic. In such a way, expectancy of the anesthetic effect was directed only toward the part on which the placebo cream was applied. We found that a placebo analgesic response occurred only on the treated part, whereas no variation in pain sensitivity was found on the untreated parts. If the same experiment was performed after an intravenous infusion of the opioid antagonist naloxone, this highly spatial-specific placebo response was totally abolished, indicating that it was completely mediated by endogenous opioid systems. These findings show that a spatially directed expectation of pain reduction is capable of inducing a specific effect only on the part of the body which is the target of the expectation. Most important, this specific effect is mediated by endogenous opioids, indicating that placebo-activated opioids do not act on the entire body but only on the part where expectancy is directed. This suggests that a highly organized and somatotopic network of endogenous opioids links expectation, attention, and body schema.

Neuropharmacological dissection of placebo analgesia: expectation-activated opioid systems versus conditioning-activated specific subsystems

We investigated the mechanisms underlying the activation of endogenous opioids in placebo analgesia by using the model of human experimental ischemic arm pain. Different types of placebo analgesic responses were evoked by means of cognitive expectation cues, drug conditioning, or a combination of both. Drug conditioning was performed by means of either the opioid agonist morphine hydrochloride or the nonopioid ketorolac tromethamine. Expectation cues produced placebo responses that were completely blocked by the opioid antagonist naloxone. Expectation cues together with morphine conditioning produced placebo responses that were completely antagonized by naloxone. Morphine conditioning alone (without expectation cues) induced a naloxone-reversible placebo effect. By contrast, ketorolac conditioning together with expectation cues elicited a placebo effect that was blocked by naloxone only partially. Ketorolac conditioning alone produced placebo responses that were naloxone-insensitive. Therefore, we evoked different types of placebo responses that were either naloxone-reversible or partially naloxone-reversible or, otherwise, naloxone-insensitive, depending on the procedure used to evoke the placebo response. These findings show that cognitive factors and conditioning are balanced in different ways in placebo analgesia, and this balance is crucial for the activation of opioid or nonopioid systems. Expectation triggers endogenous opioids, whereas conditioning activates specific subsystems. In fact, if conditioning is performed with opioids, placebo analgesia is mediated via opioid receptors, if conditioning is performed with nonopioid drugs, other nonopioid mechanisms result to be involved.

Inducing placebo respiratory depressant responses in humans via opioid receptors

Several lines of evidence indicate that placebos produce analgesia through the activation of endogenous opioid systems. Recently, we showed that placebos may also produce respiratory depressant responses, a typical side-effect of narcotics, when a subject had a prior experience of respiratory depression in the course of narcotic treatment. In the present study, we report that the placebo respiratory depression can be induced after repeated administrations of the partial opioid agonist buprenorphine. The placebo respiratory depressant effect that resulted from the buprenorphine conditioning was completely blocked by a dose of 10 mg of naloxone, indicating that it was mediated by endogenous opioids. These findings show that placebos act, via the activation of opioid receptors, not only on pain mechanisms but on the respiratory centres as well, thus mimicking a typical side-effect of narcotics. In addition, the experimental procedure we used did not produce any expectation of respiratory depression and, similarly, the subjects did not notice any sign of respiratory discomfort. Thus, the placebo respiratory depression elicited in the present study cannot be explained on the basis of cognitive or motivational mechanisms. Rather, it appears to be a sequence effect due to learning, thus suggesting a conditioning mechanism mediated by endogenous opioids.