Open-label Placebos for Wound Healing: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Effects of an open-label placebo on visual attention directed to food high in sugar, appetite, and desire for sweet taste

BACKGROUND

Interventions with deceptive placebos can reduce visual attention directed to high-calorie sweets. Open-label placebos (OLPs), which avoid the ethical concerns associated with deception, have shown promise in various fields. This is the first study to test the effects of OLPs on appetite, desire for sweet taste and visual attention for high-sugar foods.

METHODS

In this preregistered laboratory study, fifty-three females (mean age = 22.8 years) were presented with image pairs depicting food high vs. low in sugar as well as non-food items. The image presentation was conducted once with and without an OLP. Different indicators of visual attention (total fixation duration, number of fixations, first fixation location), general appetite and the desire to eat the depicted food items were assessed. Moreover, participants tasted and evaluated a sucrose solution to determine their desire for the sweet taste.

RESULTS

The OLP decreased general appetite (p = .005, ηp2 = .09) and the desire to taste the sucrose solution again (p = .036, d = .30). The intervention did not affect visual attention: both conditions (with/without OLP) were characterized by a longer total fixation duration and a higher number of fixations for images with low-sugar food compared to high-sugar food when presented alongside images of non-food.

CONCLUSION

The OLP did not reduce visual attention toward images of high-sugar food, and OLP effects were only observed in self-report measures. Future research should elaborate on how the efficacy of OLPs can be improved or whether deception is necessary to decrease visual attention via placebos.

Open-label placebos reduce weight in obesity: a randomized controlled trial

Obesity is a major public health problem worldwide. Different approaches are known to face this problem, for example, dieting, surgery, or drug interventions. It has also been shown that placebos may help to reduce weight and hunger feelings, but the use of placebos is linked to problems with respect to the patient-healthcare-provider relationship. However, recent studies demonstrated that even placebos without deception (open-label placebos) affect symptoms such as pain, anxiety, or emotional distress. Here we aimed to examine whether an open-label placebo may help to lose weight in obesity. Our study included fifty-seven overweight and obese patients who aimed to lose weight using a combination of diet and sports. Patients were randomly divided into two groups. Participants in the open-label placebo group received two placebos each day. A treatment-as-usual group received no pills. Primary outcome included changes of body weight. Secondary outcomes were change of eating behavior and self-management abilities. After 4 weeks we found that participants in the open-label placebo condition lost more weight than the treatment-as-usual group. Furthermore, OLP treatment affected eating behavior. No effects for self-management abilities were found. Although further research is necessary, open-label placebos might help individuals to lose weight.

Improved Wound Healing by Direct Cold Atmospheric Plasma Once or Twice a Week: A Randomized Controlled Trial on Chronic Venous Leg Ulcers

Objective: This study compared the effect of two frequencies of direct cold atmospheric plasma (direct-CAP) treatment with standard of care (SOC) alone on healing of venous leg ulcers (VLUs). Approach: Open-label, randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04922463) on chronic VLUs at two home care organizations in the Netherlands. All three groups received SOC for 12 weeks or until healing. In addition, treatment groups received direct-CAP once (1× direct-CAP) or twice (2× direct-CAP) a week, at specialized wound care facilities and the patients' residences. Primary outcome was percentage of wounds healed. Secondary outcomes included wound area reduction and adverse events. Results: In total, 46 patients were randomly allocated to receive SOC only (n = 15), SOC + direct-CAP once a week (n = 17), or SOC + direct-CAP twice a week (n = 14). A higher percentage of wounds healed within 12 weeks in the treatment groups 53.3% (1× direct-CAP, p = 0.16) and 61.5% (2× direct-CAP, p = 0.08) versus 25.0% (control). The largest wound area reduction was obtained with 2× direct-CAP (95.2%, p = 0.07), followed by 1× direct-CAP (63.9%, p = 0.58), versus control (52.8%). Absolute wound area reduced significantly compared with baseline in both treatment groups (p ≤ 0.001), not in control (p = 0.11). No device-related serious adverse events occurred. Innovation: Direct-CAP applied once or twice a week could substantially improve wound healing of VLUs in primary care. Conclusion: Together with other clinical safety and efficacy data, these results support the integration of direct-CAP as a valuable therapy for complex wounds.

Acellular fish skin grafts in the treatment of diabetic wounds: Advantages and clinical translation

Diabetic wounds cannot undergo normal wound healing due to changes in the concentration of hyperglycemia in the body and soon evolve into chronic wounds causing amputation or even death of patients. Diabetic wounds directly affect the quality of patients and social medical management; thus researchers started to focus on skin transplantation technology. The acellular fish skin grafts (AFSGs) are derived from wild fish, which avoids the influence of human immune function and the spread of the virus through low-cost decellularization. AFSGs contain a large amount of collagen and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and they have an amazing effect on wound regeneration. However, after our search in major databases, we found that there were few research trials in this field, and only one was clinically approved. Therefore, we summarized the advantages of AFSGs and listed the problems faced in clinical use. The purpose of this paper is to enable researchers to better carry out original experiments at various stages.

Open-label placebos enhance test performance and reduce anxiety in learner drivers: a randomized controlled trial

Passing the driving school test can be very challenging, especially in big cities, where up to 52% of all students fail this test. Consequently, many learner drivers experience stress and anxiety. For some learner drivers these feelings can be extreme and negatively affect the performance in the driving test. Different strategies to face anxiety and stress are known, including, for example, psychological or pharmacological approaches and even placebo pills. Recent intriguing findings have also demonstrated that placebos without deception, so-called open-label placebos, successfully reduce anxiety. Here we aimed to test effects of this novel treatment for learner drivers. We investigated whether open-label placebos affect test performance and feelings of anxiety in learner drivers. Sixty-eight healthy participants (mean age 21.94 years, 26 females) were randomized into two groups. The open-label placebo group received placebo pills two weeks before the driving test (two pills each day). The control group received no treatment. Results revealed that the open-label placebo group experienced significantly less anxiety than the control group before the test (measured with the State-Trait-Anxiety-Inventory, STAI-S, and the German Test Anxiety Inventory, PAF). Moreover, in the open-label placebo group less learner drivers failed the driving test (29.41% vs. 52.95%). The results suggest that open-label placebos may provide an ethical unproblematic way to experience less anxiety and might also enhance the probability to pass the driving test. We discuss possible mechanisms of open-label placebos and limitations of our findings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neural underpinnings of open-label placebo effects in emotional distress

While placebo effects are well-known, research in the last decade revealed intriguing effects that placebos may have beneficial effects even when given without deception. At first glance, this seems paradoxical, but several studies have reported improvements in pain, depression, or anxiety. However, it still remains unclear whether these results represent objective biological effects or simply a bias in response and what neural underpinnings are associated with the open-label placebo effects. In two studies, we address this gap by demonstrating that open-label placebos reduce self-reported emotional distress when viewing highly arousing negative pictures. This reduced emotional distress was associated with an activation of brain areas known to modulate affective states such as the periaqueductal gray, the bilateral anterior hippocampi, and the anterior cingulate cortex. We did not find any prefrontal brain activation. Furthermore, brain activation was not associated with expectation of effects. In contrast, we found that brain responses were linked to general belief in placebos. The results demonstrate that the neural mechanisms of open-label placebo effects are partly identical to the neurobiological underpinnings of conventional placebos, but our study also highlights important differences with respect to a missing engagement of prefrontal brain regions, suggesting that expectation of effects may play a less prominent role in open-label placebos.

Open-Label Placebo Effects on Psychological and Physical Well-Being: A Conceptual Replication Study

Background

Contrary to traditional placebos, open-label placebos (OLP) abstain from deception, i.e., participants are openly informed to receive an inert substance. Studies in clinical and healthy samples evidence the efficacy of OLPs. This study aims to conceptually replicate and expand findings of a recent OLP study in healthy participants while implementing a within-subject design and daily instead of retrospective assessments. Additionally, the effect of a brand name on the medicine container is tested and possible predictors of the OLP effects are explored.

Method

Healthy participants (N = 75) received OLP and no placebo for 5 days each (randomized sequence) and answered daily questionnaires on sleep quality, bodily symptoms, mental well-being, and psychological distress. The medicine container of half the participants had a brand name, the remaining did not. Different personality traits and situational factors were assessed.

Results

Mental and physical well-being did not differ between OLP and control phase, i.e., overall, no OLP effect emerged. Contrast analysis indicated that an OLP effect emerged for sleep quality and psychological distress when no brand name was present. Further, an OLP effect emerged in persons with higher expectations for bodily symptoms (r = .23, p = .046) and psychological distress (r = .24, p = .037).

Conclusions

Methodological differences to the original study are discussed as an explanation for the failure to induce overall OLP effects. Future studies should continue to replicate previous findings and determine the exact conditions of successful implementation of OLP effects in healthy as well as clinical samples.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Open-label placebo (OLP) treatment seems to be effective in several medical conditions but has not yet been investigated in insomnia. Furthermore, it needs to be evaluated whether providing a plausible treatment rationale is essential to obtain OLP effects.

METHODS

In two consecutive nights, the sleep of patients with primary insomnia (n = 45) was assessed via subjective and objective measures. Before the second night, they received a single OLP pill that was randomly provided either with a treatment rationale (OLP+) or without (OLP-). When (M)ANOVAs did not reveal differential effects between the two OLP groups, the OLP+ group was compared post-hoc to a formerly assessed no pill control sample (NPC; n = 23).

RESULTS

Neither the MANOVAs nor the ANOVAs revealed significant interaction effects of treatment group and assessment night. The OLP+ condition was superior neither to OLP- nor to NPC in improving the patients' sleep.

DISCUSSION

Our findings do neither confirm the general efficacy of OLP in primary insomnia nor differential effects depending on the treatment rationale. Possible explanations lie in the dosing scheme (i.e., single OLP application), the provision of the OLP rationale by video and the experimental instead of therapeutic character of our investigation. Trials with larger samples and longer-term OLP treatment in insomnia are needed. Providing the rationale face-to-face and in a clinical setting might be additionally beneficial.

Lay perspectives of the open-label placebo rationale: a qualitative study of participants in an experimental trial

OBJECTIVES

To analyse participants' concepts about the open-label placebo (OLP) effect; to explore their views about the discussion points that are applied in conventional OLP trials and to examine their experiences of taking part in an OLP trial.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using thematic analysis of semistructured interviews that were nested within a randomised controlled trial investigating experimental OLP analgesia (registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02578420).

PARTICIPANTS

30 healthy adults who took part in the randomised controlled trial.

RESULTS

Participants mostly conceptualised placebo as something that is inert and requires deception in order to be effective. Interviewees used a broad definition of placebos, going beyond a conventional notion of sugar pills. In contrast to the conventional OLP rationale, participants seldom emphasised classical conditioning as a mechanism of placebo effects, stressing a variety of other well-established components through which placebos might be therapeutic, whereas the conventional OLP disclosures state that 'a positive attitude helps but is not necessary', participants in our study applied other attitudes, such as 'it's worth a try'. When asked about their experiences during the trial, the majority emphasised that the concept of OLP was completely novel to them. Participants were rather sceptical about the efficacy of the intervention.

CONCLUSION

Integrating lay perspectives into the scientific rationale of OLP treatments might enhance the plausibility and credibility of the rationale in ethical treatments.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02578420.

Effects of Open-Label Placebos on State Anxiety and Glucocorticoid Stress Responses

Stress belongs to the most frequent negative feelings people are confronted with in daily life. Strategies against acute stress include, e.g., relaxation techniques or medications, but it is also known that placebos can successfully reduce negative emotional stress. While it is widely held that placebos require deception to provoke a response, recent studies demonstrate intriguing evidence that placebos may work even without concealment (e.g., against anxiety or pain). Most of these studies are based on self-report questionnaires and do not include physiological measures. Here we report results of a study examining whether placebos without deception reduce acute stress. A total of 53 healthy individuals received either placebos without deception or no pills before participating in a laboratory stress test (Maastricht Acute Stress Test, MAST). We recorded self-report stress measures and cortisol responses before and after the MAST. Results showed no significant differences between the placebo and the control group, but when comparing participants with high relative to low beliefs in the power of placebos we found significant lower anxiety and cortisol responses for the placebo believers. These results show that non-deceptive placebos may successfully reduce acute anxiety and stress, but only in participants who had a strong belief in placebos. We discuss the results by suggesting that open-label placebos might be a possible treatment to reduce stress at least for some individuals.

Use of Nonmedicated Control Substances in Randomized Clinical Trials of Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-analysis

Importance

The effect of nonmedicated control substances in chronic rhinosinusitis remains unclear.

Objective

To assess the association of nonmedicated control substances in randomized clinical trials with disease outcomes in patients diagnosed with chronic rhinosinusitis.

Data Sources and Study Selection

In this single-arm systematic review and meta-analysis, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized clinical trials with a preintervention and postintervention design for chronic rhinosinusitis that were published between 1946 and January 23, 2019.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Paired reviewers independently extracted data. The analyses used random-effects models and the Cochrane risk of bias assessment to rate the quality of the evidence.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were the association of nonmedicated control substances with 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) scores or nasal symptom scores when SNOT-22 was not available.

Results

A total of 2305 abstracts were identified and screened, 725 articles were reviewed in full text, and 38 articles met the study criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Among the 38 included studies, a total of 2258 adults (mean age range, 27-53 years; 20.0%-72.5% women) were randomized to receive nonmedicated control substances or sham interventions. Topical nonmedicated control substances were associated with significant reduction in SNOT-22 scores (mean difference [MD], -8.81; 95% CI, -12.60 to -5.03). A subgroup analysis of topical therapies, limited to saline irrigation and nasal spray diluents, found that topical diluents were associated with a greater reduction in SNOT-22 scores (MD, -11.45; 95% CI, -13.50 to -9.41) compared with saline irrigation (MD, -13.60; 95% CI, -19.95 to -7.25). Nonmedicated control substances were associated with a significant reduction in nasal obstruction scores (standardized MD [SMD], -0.42; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.03). No significant change was found in rhinorrhea scores (SMD, -0.34; 95% CI, -1.37 to 0.69), postnasal drip scores (SMD, -0.96; 95% CI, -2.18 to 0.25), facial pain scores (SMD, -0.57; 95% CI, -1.68 to 0.55), or loss of smell scores (SMD, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.68 to 0.32).

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of nonmedicated control substances in randomized clinical trials of chronic rhinosinusitis outcomes suggests that the use of nonmedicated control substances is associated with limited improvements in SNOT-22 and nasal obstruction scores. These findings highlight potential areas of future research directions and the importance of randomized clinical trials to accurately estimate treatment effect.

Effects of Patients' Expectation in Dermatology: Evidence from Experimental and Clinical Placebo Studies and Implications for Dermatologic Practice and Research

Patients' expectations towards the benefit of a treatment are key determinants of placebo responses and can affect the development and course of medical conditions and the efficacy and tolerability of active medical treatment. The mechanisms mediating these placebo and nocebo effects have been best described in the field of experimental pain and placebo analgesia. However, also in dermatology experimental and clinical studies demonstrate that various skin diseases such as inflammatory dermatoses and allergic reactions can be modulated by patients' expectations. Dermatologists should consider the important modulatory role of patients' expectations on the efficacy and tolerability of specific treatments and the key role of verbal information, patients' prior treatment experiences (associative learning), and the quality and quantity of doctor-patient communication in shaping treatment expectation. As a consequence, techniques aiming at maximizing patients' expectation effects should be implemented into daily clinical routine. By contrast, in clinical studies expectation effects should be maximally controlled and harmonized to improve the "assay sensitivity" to detect new compounds. Further translational studies, also in dermatoses that have not been investigated yet, are needed to better characterize the mechanisms underlying patients' expectation and to gain further insights into potential clinical implications of these effects in dermatologic conditions. Therefore, in this review, we provide a brief overview on the concept of expectation effects on treatment outcome in general, summarize what is already known about this topic for dermatologic diseases, and finally present the relevance of this topic in clinical dermatology.

Open-label placebo clinical trials: is it the rationale, the interaction or the pill?

National surveys of primary care physicians demonstrate that placebo use is prevalent. Against their widespread use, until recently, it was assumed among researchers that placebos must be deceptively prescribed for beneficial effects to be elicited. However, a new programme of research in placebo studies indicates that it may be possible to harness placebo effects in clinical practice via ethical, non-deceptively prescribed 'open label placebos' ('OLPs'). To date, there have been 14 small scale clinical and experimental trials into OLPs. Results suggest therapeutic potential of these treatments for a range of conditions and symptoms. In this evidence-based Analysis we identify conceptual issues that, if not given due consideration, risk undermining research methodologies in OLP trials. Counterintuitively, owing to the nuances posed by placebo terminology, and the difficulties of designing placebos controls in OLP trials, we suggest that experimentalists reflect more deeply when formulating adequate comparison groups. Further research is needed to disentangle which specific components of OLPs are effective, such as: the rationale provided to participants; the quality of provider interaction; and/or the action of taking the pills. We conclude with recommendations for how researchers might take up the significant challenge of devising optimal placebo controls for OLP clinical trials. Although these issues are intricate, they are not merely academic: without due diligence to conceptual, and as a consequence, methodological considerations, OLP effect sizes may be over- or underestimated. We conclude that there may yet be potential to use OLPs in medical practice but clinical translation depends on rigorously controlled research.

More than consent for ethical open-label placebo research

Recent studies have explored the effectiveness of open-label placebos (OLPs) for a variety of conditions, including chronic pain, cancer-related fatigue and irritable bowel syndrome. OLPs are thought to sidestep traditional ethical worries about placebos because they do not involve deception: with an OLP, patients or subjects are told outright that they are not given an active substance. As deception is framed as the primary hurdle to ethical placebo use, the door is ostensibly opened to ethical studies of OLPs. In this article, I suggest that even though OLPs seemingly do not involve deception, there are other ethical considerations in their clinical investigation and subsequent use. Research ethics often focusses on informed consent-of which, deception and honesty are a piece-as a means to justify research practices with human subjects. Yet, it is but one of the ethical considerations that should be taken into account. With research into placebo effects in particular, I argue that the history of clinical placebo use grounds special considerations for OLP research that go beyond respect for the autonomy of individual patients through informed consent and encompass structural concerns about the type of patient for whom a placebo has historically been thought appropriate.

Placebos without deception reduce self-report and neural measures of emotional distress

Several recent studies suggest that placebos administered without deception (i.e., non-deceptive placebos) can help people manage a variety of highly distressing clinical disorders and nonclinical impairments. However, whether non-deceptive placebos represent genuine psychobiological effects is unknown. Here we address this issue by demonstrating across two experiments that during a highly arousing negative picture viewing task, non-deceptive placebos reduce both a self-report and neural measure of emotional distress, the late positive potential. These results show that non-deceptive placebo effects are not merely a product of response bias. Additionally, they provide insight into the neural time course of non-deceptive placebo effects on emotional distress and the psychological mechanisms that explain how they function.

There is controversy about whether placebos without deception cause real psychobiological benefits. Here, the authors show that the positive effects of placebos without deception are more than response bias by providing evidence they can reduce self-report and neural measures of emotional distress.

[Appearances are not deceptive: clinical evidence and new research approaches to open-label placebo]

The efficacy of placebo effects is proven in experimental, clinical and meta-analytical studies. However, harnessing placebo effects in clinical treatment contexts is hampered legally and ethically, since it has been considered necessary to conceal the inert nature of a placebo application. Interestingly, the results of recently published small, randomized trials suggest that patients can experience symptom relief after taking pills that they know lack any medication. In particular, these so-called open-label placebos (OLP) improved strongly fluctuating and individually distressing complaints such as gastrointestinal, neurological, psychosomatic and pain symptoms. Although the mechanisms are largely unknown, the open-label placebo application might be a promising way of fostering placebo effects in clinical settings. Initial study protocols already provide schedules for OLP use as an additional treatment in opioid use disorders. Likewise, the reduction of side effects, conversion effects or withdrawal symptoms through OLP applications in pharmacologically active treatments appear to serve as appropriate therapy goals. Further mechanistic studies are urgently needed to investigate the thus far only hypothetically proposed underlying mechanisms of OLP.

Non-concealed placebo treatment for menopausal hot flushes: Study protocol of a randomized-controlled trial

Background

Beneficial effects of placebos are high in double-blind hot flush trials. Studies in various conditions suggest that honestly prescribed placebos may elicit symptom improvement.

Objective

To determine whether open label placebo (OLP) treatment is efficacious in alleviating hot flushes among peri- and postmenopausal women.

Methods/design

In this assessor-blinded, randomized-controlled trial, n = 100 women experiencing five or more daily hot flushes of at least moderate severity and bothersomeness are assigned 1:1 to a 4-week OLP treatment or no treatment. To explore the duration and maintenance of placebo effects, the OLP group is randomized a second time to either discontinue or continue the OLP treatment for another 4 weeks. All participants receive a briefing about placebo effects and study visits at baseline, post-treatment (4 weeks), and follow-up (8 weeks, OLP group only). Qualitative interviews about subjective experiences with the OLP treatment are conducted.

Primary outcomes are differences between the OLP and the no-treatment group in the hot flush composite score (frequency × severity), and bothersomeness of hot flushes as assessed with the Hot Flush Rating Scale at post-treatment. Secondary outcomes include hot flush frequency, health-related quality of life, global improvement, and the number of responders at post-treatment. Data are analyzed by fitting (generalized) linear mixed models. An exploratory analysis of maintenance and duration is performed including follow-up data.

Discussion

This trial will contribute to the evaluation of OLP treatments in clinical practice and further our understanding about the magnitude of placebo effects in hot flush treatments.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03838523. Retrospectively registered on February 12th, 2019. The first patient was enrolled on October 10th, 2018.

The role of patient beliefs in open-label placebo effects

OBJECTIVE

Recent research on open-label placebos, or placebos administered without deception or concealment, suggests that they can be effective in a variety of conditions. The current research sought to unpack the mechanisms underlying the treatment efficacy of open-label placebos.

METHOD

A health care provider induced an allergic reaction in 148 participants via a histamine skin prick test. Participants were then exposed to 1 of 4 conditions additively leveraging various mechanisms of open-label placebo treatments: a supportive patient-provider relationship, a medical ritual, positive expectations, and a rationale about the power of placebos.

RESULTS

There were no main effects of condition on allergic responses. However, participant beliefs about placebos moderated the effect of open-label placebo treatment condition on physiological allergic reactions: the condition including all 4 components of open-label placebos (a supportive patient-provider relationship, a medical ritual, positive expectations, and a rationale about the power of placebos) significantly reduced physiological allergic reaction among participants with a strong belief in placebos compared with participants in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Participants' beliefs about placebos interact with information from the provider to reduce physiological allergic reactions in response to an open-label placebo treatment. This study underscores the importance of measuring and understanding how participants' beliefs influence outcomes of treatment, and furthers our understanding of when and how open-label placebo treatments work. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

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

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