Pain reduction is related to hypnotizability but not to relaxation or to reduction in suffering: a preliminary investigation

Immediate hypnosis effects and outcome predictors in chronic nociplastic pain

This study used data from a randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of hypnosis with analgesic suggestions relative to hypnosis with nonspecific suggestions to explore two areas. The first was the immediate effects of each hypnosis session and their relevance to the treatment induced change in pain intensity. The second was the identification of variables associated with the beneficial effects of hypnosis treatment in the form of reducing pain intensity and pain quality. The predictive value of the initial treatment response, hypnotizability, and the dichotomous variable of pain medication use were examined. Both interventions resulted in similar significant reductions in pain intensity after each session, but without a cumulative effect. The initial response correlated positively and moderately with pain intensity decreases induced by the complete hypnosis treatment. There was only a weak association between hypnotizability and pain quality improvement. Only participants not taking pain medications achieved a meaningful reduction in pain outcomes. Each hypnosis session results in an immediate reduction in chronic nociplastic pain intensity, and a fruitful first session may be a positive signal to continue therapy. Even patients with low hypnotizability can obtain beneficial outcomes. Pain medication use may become a new predictor in hypnosis research, as significant decreases in pain intensity and pain quality occurred only in the absence of pharmacotherapy. However, the results of this study require confirmation in further research with longer treatment periods.

Who Benefits the Most From Different Psychological Chronic Pain Treatments? An Exploratory Analysis of Treatment Moderators

Different psychological chronic pain treatments benefit some individuals more than others. Understanding the factors that are associated with treatment response-especially when those factors differ between treatments-may inform more effective patient-treatment matching. This study aimed to identify variables that moderate treatment response to 4 psychological pain interventions in a sample of adults with low back pain or chronic pain associated with multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, acquired amputation, or muscular dystrophy (N = 173). The current study presents the results from secondary exploratory analyses using data from a randomized controlled clinical trial which compared the effects of 4 sessions of cognitive therapy (CT), hypnosis focused on pain reduction (HYP), hypnosis focused on changing pain-related cognitions and beliefs (HYP-CT), and a pain education control condition (ED). The analyses tested the effects of 7 potential treatment moderators. Measures of primary (pain intensity) and secondary (pain interference, depression severity) outcome domains were administered before and after the pain treatments, and potential moderators (catastrophizing, hypnotizability, and electroencephalogram (EEG)-assessed oscillation power across five bandwidths) were assessed at pre-treatment. Moderator effects were tested fitting regression analyses to pre- to post-treatment changes in the three outcome variables. The study findings, while preliminary, support the premise that pre-treatment measures of hypnotizability and EEG brain activity predict who is more (or less) likely to respond to different psychological pain treatments. If additional research replicates the findings, it may be possible to better match patients to their more individually suitable treatment, ultimately improving pain treatment outcomes. PERSPECTIVE: Pre-treatment measures of hypnotizability and EEG-assessed brain activity predicted who was more (or less) likely to respond to different psychological pain treatments. If these findings are replicated in future studies, they could inform the development of patient-treatment matching algorithms.

The Effect of Hypnosis on the Intensity of Pain and Anxiety in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review of Controlled Experimental Trials

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom in cancer patients. Hypnosis is considered one of the most recognized non-pharmacological techniques in pain management. In oncology, this technique can be used as a complementary treatment to reduce the level of pain and anxiety. The objective of this study is to systematically review and evaluate controlled clinical trials (CCTs) examining the effect of hypnosis on the intensity of pain, and anxiety in cancer patients.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to the recommendations of the "Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses" (PRISMA). The Cochrane systematic review database, the abstract databases, Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library have been systematically reviewed from 2005 to 2018.

RESULTS

Eleven CCT with a total of 1182 participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. The participants were mainly women (n = 968). Their average age alternates between 48 and 58 years. Perceived pain was measured primarily by visual analog scale (VAS)/numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), which showed that anxiety was measured by Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS). Hypnosis-related anxiety and pain decreased significantly with respect to usual treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests promising results of hypnosis on the management of pain, and anxiety levels in the vast majority of cancer patients. Therefore, because of the exploratory design and high risk of bias, the effectiveness of hypnosis or hypnotherapy in reducing pain and anxiety levels remains unclear. There is a need for more rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Hypnotic predictors of agency: Responsiveness to specific suggestions in hypnosis is associated with involuntariness in fibromyalgia

Hypnosis is associated with alterations in the sense of agency which can play a role in its utilization as a nonpharmacological option for pain management. The goal of the current study was to examine the relationships between responsiveness to suggestions in hypnosis and alterations of the sense of agency among patients with fibromyalgia. Ninety-eight participants with fibromyalgia underwent two hypnotizability assessments followed by the Sense of Agency Rating Scale. Clinical pain measures were also collected. Involuntariness was predicted by responsiveness to control, ideomotor, and dissociation suggestions. Effortlessness was predicted by responsiveness to control and ideomotor suggestions, and age. Hypnotizability was associated with main clinical pain outcomes, but agency alterations were not. Results suggest a shared mechanism between responsiveness to specific suggestions and the sense of agency in hypnosis. We discuss theoretical and clinical implications for pain management and the need for further research.

Analgesic hypnotic treatment in a post-stroke patient

In recent years, hypnotic suggestions have been used in several clinical conditions. This treatment is often used for anxiety treatment, somatization, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Hypnotic analgesia is one of the most clinically useful phenomena of hypnosis. The article describes the case of a patient who underwent hypnotic treatments for hypersensitivity and chronic pain. Results showed an improvement of pain control and a decrease of pain hypersensibility. In addition, during rehabilitative treatments, the patient reported a high level of compliance with the multidisciplinary team. These findings suggest that hypnosis could be a useful treatment for post-stroke pain management.

A Philosophical Approach to the Rehabilitation of the Patient with Persistent Pain

The use of hypnosis to promote hypnoanalgesia has a long history and has been written about anecdotally as well as having been researched in the last several decades. Research has been both clinical in nature and, in the laboratory, trying to understand the brain physiology and processes involved. This article is not about a review of the research. It is about sharing what I have learned to do clinically using hypnosis to treat patients with persistent pain over the last 40 plus years. Due to the restraints of limited space, I can only discuss the various techniques briefly. I will describe a philosophical perspective that has served me well and driven my approach to treatment. I will discuss the concept of self-regulation training along the dimensions of Sensation, Affect, Cognition, and Behavior and share how hypnosis has been incorporated in working within each of those aspects of experiencing.

Hypnosis, hypnotizability, and placebo

Dr. Raz's speculations about the relation between placebo responsivity and hypnotizability are critically examined. While there is no generally accepted theoretical definition of hypnosis, there is a general consensus that hypnotizability can be reliably measured. In contrast, there seems to be a general consensus about a theoretical definition of placebo (including placebo effect, placebo response, and nocebo). There is no widely accepted measure of individual differences in placebo responsivity. Various methodological considerations about how to examine the relation between placebo responsivity and hypnotizability are identified. Studies are identified which indicate that response to treatments which utilize adjunctive hypnosis are superior to placebo treatments. The only study which examined whether placebo responsivity was correlated with hypnotizability seems to indicate that they are only slightly related at best. The possibility that there may be such thing as a "good placebo responder (GPR)" is questioned, while the known clinical value of hypnotizability assessment is reaffirmed. Future directions for empirical research on the relation between placebo responsivity and hypnotizability are identified.

Mechanisms of hypnosis: toward the development of a biopsychosocial model

Evidence supports the efficacy of hypnotic treatments, but there remain many unresolved questions regarding how hypnosis produces its beneficial effects. Most theoretical models focus more or less on biological, psychological, and social factors. This scoping review summarizes the empirical findings regarding the associations between specific factors in each of these domains and response to hypnosis. The findings indicate that (a) no single factor appears primary, (b) different factors may contribute more or less to outcomes in different subsets of individuals or for different conditions, and (c) comprehensive models of hypnosis that incorporate factors from all 3 domains may ultimately prove to be more useful than more restrictive models that focus on just 1 or a very few factors.

Experimental pain ratings and reactivity of cortisol and soluble tumor necrosis factor-α receptor II following a trial of hypnosis: results of a randomized controlled pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Current evidence supports the efficacy of hypnosis for reducing the pain associated with experimental stimulation and various acute and chronic conditions; however, the mechanisms explaining how hypnosis exerts its effects remain less clear. The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and pro-inflammatory cytokines represent potential targets for investigation given their purported roles in the perpetuation of painful conditions; yet, no clinical trials have thus far examined the influence of hypnosis on these mechanisms.

DESIGN

Healthy participants, highly susceptible to the effects of hypnosis, were randomized to either a hypnosis intervention or a no-intervention control. Using a cold pressor task, assessments of pain intensity and pain unpleasantness were collected prior to the intervention (Pre) and following the intervention (Post) along with pain-provoked changes in salivary cortisol and the soluble tumor necrosis factor-α receptor II (sTNFαRII).

RESULTS

Compared with the no-intervention control, data analyses revealed that hypnosis significantly reduced pain intensity and pain unpleasantness. Hypnosis was not significantly associated with suppression of cortisol or sTNFαRII reactivity to acute pain from Pre to Post; however, the effect sizes for these associations were medium-sized.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the findings from this randomized controlled pilot study support the importance of a future large-scale study on the effects of hypnosis for modulating pain-related changes of the HPA axis and pro-inflammatory cytokines.

Hypnosis, hypnotizability and treatment

There is broad agreement that a phenomenon we call "hypnosis" exists. However, there is no generally accepted definition of hypnosis. A brief historical overview of the use of hypnosis in healing practices demonstrates how it evolved willy-nilly, and like Topsy, "just growed" into its current status in medicine, psychiatry, psychology and dentistry. The mechanisms underlying hypnosis and how hypnosis differs from other cognitive states are almost totally unknown. With the exceptions of suggestions for pain control, current concepts of high, medium, low or non-hypnotizability do not reliably predict clinical outcomes for most medical, psychiatric or dental disorders. We do know that it is relatively easy to reliably evaluate hypnotizability, but other than choosing volunteers or subjects who will or will not exhibit traditional hypnotic phenomena, we rarely know what to do with that evaluation with actual clinical patients. Four case studies, representative of many others, chosen retrospectively from a practice that spans 45 years, illustrate how traditional or modern hypnotizability assessment is irrelevant in the clinical setting. Although the four patients differed obviously and vastly in hypnotizability, they all benefited from the use of hypnosis.

Hypnosis, hynotizability, and placebo

Dr. Raz' speculations about the relation between placebo responsivity and hypnotizability are critically examined. While there is no generally accepted theoretical definition of hypnosis, there is a general consensus that hypnotizability can be reliably measured. In contrast, there seems to be a general consensus about a theoretical definition of placebo (including placebo effect, placebo response and nocebo). There is no widely accepted measure of individual differences in placebo responsivity. Various methodological considerations about how to examine the relation between placebo responsivity and hypnotizability are identified. Studies are identified which indicate that response to treatments which utilize adjunctive hypnosis are superior to placebo treatments. The only study which examined whether placebo responsivity was correlated with hypnotizability seems to indicate that they are only slightly related at best. The possibility that there may be such thing as a "good placebo responder (GPR)" is questioned, while the known clinical value of hypnotizability assessment is reaffirmed. Future directions for empirical research on the relation between placebo responsivity and hypnotizability are identified.

Hypnotherapy for the management of chronic pain

This article reviews controlled prospective trials of hypnosis for the treatment of chronic pain. Thirteen studies, excluding studies of headaches, were identified that compared outcomes from hypnosis for the treatment of chronic pain to either baseline data or a control condition. The findings indicate that hypnosis interventions consistently produce significant decreases in pain associated with a variety of chronic-pain problems. Also, hypnosis was generally found to be more effective than nonhypnotic interventions such as attention, physical therapy, and education. Most of the hypnosis interventions for chronic pain include instructions in self-hypnosis. However, there is a lack of standardization of the hypnotic interventions examined in clinical trials, and the number of patients enrolled in the studies has tended to be low and lacking long-term follow-up. Implications of the findings for future clinical research and applications are discussed.

An exploration of the utility of hypnosis in pain management among rural pain patients

Objective:Hypnosis is an adjunctive, noninvasive treatment with few side effects that can be useful in the management of chronic pain. However, it has fallen into disfavor in recent years and is often perceived by physicians as simple charlatanism. We evaluated the efficacy of this treatment as used clinically in a large, mostly rural, pain management center.

Methods:We conducted a chart review of 300 pain patients from the Pain Treatment Center of the Bluegrass who had undergone hypnosis for their pain concerns. A chart audit tool was developed consisting of basic demographics, pre- and posthypnosis pain ratings, a rating of relaxation achieved posthypnosis, and scores on the Beck Depression Inventory, Perceived Disability Scale, and the Pain Anxiety Symptom Scale.

Results:The sample consisted of 79 men (26.3%) and 221 women (73.7%) with a mean age of 46.3 years (SD= 9.9, range = 19–78). Pain levels recorded pre- and posthypnosis revealed significant improvement as a result of the intervention (mean difference = 2.5,t(1,298) = 25.9,p< .001). Patients reported an average of 49.8% improvement in relaxation level posthypnosis (SD= 24.2%) and had a mean score of 19.0 on the Beck Depression Inventory (SD= 9.9), indicating moderate levels of depression. Also, patients saw themselves as severely disabled regarding their ability to engage in physical (8.3/10) or job-related (7.7/10) activities. Attempts to identify predictors of hypnosis success were not fruitful with one exception. “Poor” responders to hypnosis reported greater levels of perceived dysfunction in their sexual functioning compared to the “good” responders,F(1,187) = 7.2,p< .01.

Significance of results:Hypnosis appears to be a viable adjunct for pain management patients, including those from rural and relatively disadvantaged backgrounds. Prospective trials are needed to examine the utility of this modality in end-of-life and palliative care patients.