Pain Response to Open Label Placebo in Induced Acute Pain in Healthy Adult Males

Change in pain expectations but no open-label placebo analgesia: An experimental study using the heat pain paradigm

BACKGROUND

Open-label placebos (OLP) prescribed without deception and with a convincing rationale have been shown to evoke powerful treatment effects. Patients' treatment expectations seem to influence the magnitude of the effect.

OBJECTIVE

We examined if two different OLP rationales increased pain tolerance and reduced pain intensity and unpleasantness in a standardized heat pain experiment.

METHODS

Participants (N = 71) who self-reported reoccurring pain for at least the last 3 months were randomly assigned to one of three groups. We compared a personal-emotional and a scientific-matter-of-fact rationale with a control group (CG) that received the same placebo without any rationale. The rationale suggested a desensitizing effect on pain perception and improved pain coping of the placebo, whereas in the CG it was introduced as an ointment for measurement. The primary outcomes were pre-post changes in pain tolerance, expected and experienced pain intensity and unpleasantness.

RESULTS

Participants showed a decrease in expected pain intensity, but not expected pain unpleasantness for both rationales. There were no differences in pain tolerance and experienced pain intensity and unpleasantness.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that evoking positive treatment expectations is not sufficient to elicit an OLP response. Possibly, the magnitude of expectations change in this study was not powerful enough to evoke an OLP effect. Additionally, it is possible that OLP effects in pain are unrelated to positive treatment expectations. The failure of OLP in our study is in contrast to a number of previous studies examining the effects of OLP in experimental and clinical pain.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study provides evidence that positive treatment expectations are not sufficient to evoke an open-label placebo effect in a standardized heat pain experiment. We showed that two different rationales improved participants treatment expectations, but failed to evoke a placebo effect in comparison to a control group that received the same placebo, labelled as an ointment to improve measurement quality.

Choice over placebo administration enhances open-label placebo hypoalgesia

ABSTRACT

Many studies indicate that deceptively administered placebos can improve pain outcomes. However, the deception involved presents an ethical barrier to translation because it violates informed consent and patient autonomy. Open-label placebos (OLPs), inert treatments that are openly administered as placebos, have been proposed as an ethically acceptable alternative. Early studies have suggested that OLP can improve pain outcomes, but important questions remain as to how to maximise OLP hypoalgesia to improve treatment outcomes in pain patients. This study investigated whether providing choice over when to administer an OLP treatment has the capacity to enhance OLP hypoalgesia using an electrocutaneous pain paradigm. One hundred thirty-two healthy volunteers were randomised to 3 types of treatment: OLP with choice, OLP without choice, and no treatment (natural history). The OLP groups were further randomised such that half were tested with a consistent pain intensity and the other half were tested with variable pain intensity to mimic day-to-day variability in pain intensity in health settings. The results indicated that treatment provided with choice exhibited greater OLP hypoalgesia than that provided without choice and that greater expectancy mediated this effect. Of interest, there was no evidence for OLP hypoalgesia without choice relative to natural history. Furthermore, variability in pain intensity did not affect OLP hypoalgesia. The current findings present novel evidence that choice over treatment administration may be a cheap and effective strategy for boosting the efficacy of OLPs in the clinical care of pain.

Boosting open-label placebo effects in acute induced pain in healthy adults (BOLPAP-study): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Introduction

Pain is a highly prevalent symptom in the hospital setting, but treatment options remain limited. Harnessing the placebo effect in an ethical manner could provide a new possibility to reduce pain in clinical practice. So called open-label placebos (OLP) have been shown to elicit significant effects in reducing acute pain. But, before implementation, more knowledge concerning the properties of OLPs is needed. This study aims to assess the duration of analgesic effects from OLP and to determine the possibility of boosting such effects.

Methods and analysis

This is the protocol of an ongoing (first patient enrolled in March 2023) single-site randomized trial investigating OLPs in two parts (i.e., substudies). In both parts, pain will be induced in healthy adults using an intradermal electrical stimulation model. Participants in Part 1 will have two study visits: An interventional visit with one OLP injection accompanied by an evidence-based treatment rationale and a control visit with no treatment. For Part 2, participants will be randomized into three groups: (1) A fixed-time "Booster" group including one single repetition of the OLP injection at a fixed time point, (2) an on-demand "Booster" group including one single repetition of the OLP injection on-demand, and (3) a control group who will receive just one OLP injection. Differences in pain ratings over time (using the Numeric Rating Scale) will be analyzed with several two-sample t-tests. The time point for a fixed-time "Booster" in Part 2 will be derived from Part 1 with additional statistical tools such as a broken-stick mixed-effect model.

Discussion

This study aims to further characterize the analgesic effects of OLPs. In doing so, it will provide valuable information needed for later implementation of OLPs in clinical practice, where they could play a role in multimodal analgesic concepts.

Ethics and dissemination

The "Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz" (BASEC 2023-00296) approved the study protocol. Results of the analysis will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Clinical Trial Registration

This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05819476) and is listed in the Swiss National Registry at kofam.ch (SNCTP000005470).

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.

Effects of an open-label placebo intervention on reactions to social exclusion in healthy adults: a randomized controlled trial

Social exclusion, that is being left out by others, can have adverse consequences for individuals' psychological well-being. Even short-term experiences of social exclusion strongly threaten basic psychological needs and cause so-called social pain. Prior research suggests an overlap between the experience of social and physical pain that, amongst others, is reflected by the effectiveness of physical pain treatments in alleviating social pain. Drawing upon these prior findings, we here explore whether open-label placebos, which have previously been found to be effective in reducing physical pain, can alleviate social pain following social exclusion. Seventy-four healthy participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 × 2 between-subjects design: First, they either received an open-label placebo intervention or no treatment. Second, they either experienced inclusion or exclusion by their co-players in the interactive ball-tossing game Cyberball. We find that excluded participants in the open-label placebo condition experienced significantly less hurt feelings compared to those in the control condition (Cohen's d = 0.77). There was no effect of treatment for need threat. The findings suggest new possibilities to alleviate social pain, which is of particular interest in the context of preventing destructive and maladaptive behaviors in situations where functional coping strategies are unavailable.

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.

No long-term effects after a 3-week open-label placebo treatment for chronic low back pain: a 3-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT

Chronic low back pain is prevalent, highly disabling, and a relevant socioeconomic health concern. Although allocated to placebo groups, patients in randomized controlled trials show significant pain relief, pointing to the relevance of placebo effects. Overcoming ethical and legal concerns related to deceptive placebos, recent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of short-term treatments for chronic low back pain with open-label (ie, nondeceptive) placebos. However, data on long-term efficacy of open-label placebos are sparse. Here, we report a 3-year follow-up of our previously published randomized controlled trial demonstrating pain reduction, improvement in disability, and depressive symptoms after a 3-week treatment with open-label placebos. Including records from 89 previously enrolled patients, we investigated changes between the groups with and without previous open-label placebo treatment in pain intensity (primary outcome), disability and mood (secondary outcomes), biopsychosocial factors and lifestyle (exploratory outcomes) from parent baseline to follow-up. Over the 3-year period, there were no differences in any outcome between groups with and without open-label placebo treatment. Therefore, our follow-up data do not support the previously suggested assumption that a 3-week open-label placebo treatment has long-term effects. This study was preregistered on April 14, 2020, in the German Clinical Trials Register (registration number DRKS00021405).

How Effective Altruism Can Help Psychologists Maximize Their Impact

Although many psychologists are interested in making the world a better place through their work, they are often unable to have the impact that they would like. Here, we suggest that both individuals and psychology as a field can better improve human welfare by incorporating ideas from effective altruism, a growing movement whose members aim to do the most good by using science and reason to inform their efforts. In this article, we first briefly introduce effective altruism and review important principles that can be applied to how psychologists approach their work, such as the importance, tractability, and neglectedness framework. We then review how effective altruism can inform individual psychologists' choices. Finally, we close with a discussion of ideas for how psychology, as a field, can increase its positive impact. By applying insights from effective altruism to psychological science, we aim to integrate a new theoretical framework into psychological science, stimulate new areas of research, start a discussion on how psychology can maximize its impact, and inspire the psychology community to do the most good.

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.

Deceptive and open-label placebo effects in experimentally induced guilt: a randomized controlled trial in healthy subjects

Placebos are known to yield significant effects in many conditions. We examined deceptive and open-label placebo effects on guilt, which is important for self-regulation and a symptom of mental disorders. Following an experimental induction of guilt, healthy subjects were randomized to deceptive placebo (DP; n = 35), open-label placebo (OLP; n = 35), or no treatment (NT; n = 39). The primary outcome was guilt responses assessed in area under the curve (AUC). Secondary outcomes were shame, guilt, and affect. We hypothesized that DP and OLP would reduce guilt compared to NT. Guilt responses were higher in the NT group than in the placebo groups (estimate = 2.03, 95% CI = 0.24-3.82, d = 0.53), whereas AUC guilt did not differ significantly between the placebo groups (estimate = -0.38, 95% CI = -2.52-1.76, d = -0.09). Placebos are efficacious in reducing acute guilt responses, regardless of the placebo administration (i.e., open vs. deceptive). Furthermore, we observed narrative-specific effects with significant changes of guilt but not shame, pride, or affect. These results indicate not only that guilt is amenable to placebos but also that placebos can be administered in an ethical and potentially emotion-specific manner.

Pain response to cannabidiol in opioid-induced hyperalgesia, acute nociceptive pain, and allodynia using a model mimicking acute pain in healthy adults in a randomized trial (CANAB II)

ABSTRACT

Opioids in general and remifentanil in particular can induce hyperalgesia. Preclinical data suggest that cannabidiol might have the capacity to reduce opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH). Thus, we investigated the effect of oral cannabidiol on OIH in healthy volunteers using an established pain model. Twenty-four healthy participants were included in this randomized, double-blinded, crossover study and received either a 1600-mg single-dose oral cannabidiol or placebo. Hyperalgesia, allodynia, and pain were induced by intracutaneous electrical stimulation. To provoke OIH, participants recieved an infusion of 0.1 µg/kg/min remifentanil over a time frame of 30 minutes, starting 100 minutes after oral cannabidiol ingestion. The primary outcome was the area of hyperalgesia (in square centimetres) up to 60 minutes after remifentanil administration. The area of allodynia (in square centimetres) and pain (numeric rating scale) were also assessed.Cannabidiol had no significant effect on hyperalgesia, allodynia, or pain at any time point of measurement compared with placebo. The area of hyperalgesia after remifentanil administration significantly increased compared with baseline (17.0 cm 2 [8.1-28.7] vs 25.3 cm 2 [15.1-39.6]; P = 0.013). Mean cannabidiol blood levels were 4.1 ± 3.0 µg/L (mean ± SD) at 130 minutes after ingestion and were 8.2 μg/L ± 6.9 µg/L (mean ± SD) at 200 minutes. Cannabidiol was well tolerated. We conclude that a high single-oral dose of 1600-mg cannabidiol is not effective in reducing OIH. Before excluding an effect of cannabidiol on OIH, research should focus on drug formulations enabling higher cannabidiol concentrations.

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.

Psycho-Neuro-Endocrine-Immunological Basis of the Placebo Effect: Potential Applications beyond Pain Therapy

The placebo effect can be defined as the improvement of symptoms in a patient after the administration of an innocuous substance in a context that induces expectations regarding its effects. During recent years, it has been discovered that the placebo response not only has neurobiological functions on analgesia, but that it is also capable of generating effects on the immune and endocrine systems. The possible integration of changes in different systems of the organism could favor the well-being of the individuals and go hand in hand with conventional treatment for multiple diseases. In this sense, classic conditioning and setting expectations stand out as psychological mechanisms implicated in the placebo effect. Recent advances in neuroimaging studies suggest a relationship between the placebo response and the opioid, cannabinoid, and monoaminergic systems. Likewise, a possible immune response conditioned by the placebo effect has been reported. There is evidence of immune suppression conditioned through the insular cortex and the amygdala, with noradrenalin as the responsible neurotransmitter. Finally, a conditioned response in the secretion of different hormones has been determined in different studies; however, the molecular mechanisms involved are not entirely known. Beyond studies about its mechanism of action, the placebo effect has proved to be useful in the clinical setting with promising results in the management of neurological, psychiatric, and immunologic disorders. However, more research is needed to better characterize its potential use. This review integrates current knowledge about the psycho-neuro-endocrine-immune basis of the placebo effect and its possible clinical applications.

Pain response to cannabidiol in induced acute nociceptive pain, allodynia, and hyperalgesia by using a model mimicking acute pain in healthy adults in a randomized trial (CANAB I)

ABSTRACT

Preclinical studies have demonstrated the analgesic potential of cannabidiol (CBD). Those suggesting an effect on pain-processing receptors have brought CBD back into focus. This study assessed the effect of CBD on acute pain, hyperalgesia, and allodynia compared with placebo. Twenty healthy volunteers were included in this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, crossover study assessing pain intensities (using numeric rating scale), secondary hyperalgesia (von Frey filament), and allodynia (dry cotton swab) in a well-established acute pain model with intradermal electrical stimulation. The authors compared the effect of 800-mg orally administered CBD on pain compared with placebo. They further examined the effect on hyperalgesia and allodynia. Cannabidiol whole blood levels were also measured. Pain ratings (mean ± SD) did not differ significantly after CBD application compared with placebo (5.2 ± 0.7 vs 5.3 ± 0.7, P-value 0.928), neither did the areas of hyperalgesia and allodynia differ significantly after CBD application compared with placebo (hyperalgesia 23.9 ± 19.2 cm2 vs 27.4 ± 17.0 cm2, P-value 0.597; allodynia 16.6 ± 13.1 cm2 vs 17.3 ± 14.1 cm2, P-value 0.884). The CBD whole blood level (median, first to third quartile) was 2.0 µg/L (1.5-5.1) 60 minutes and 5.0 µg/L (4.0-10.4) 130 minutes after CBD application. Although the oral application of 800-mg CBD failed to show a significant effect, it is important to focus future research on different dosing, routes of administration, and CBD as a part of multimodal treatment strategies before negating its effects on acute pain.

Open-Label Placebo Treatment for Acute Postoperative Pain (OLP-POP Study): Study Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction: Open-label placebos have been proposed as way of using long recognized analgesic placebo effects in an ethical manner. Recent evidence shows efficacy of open-label placebos for clinical conditions, but there is need for more research on open-label placebos in acute pain. In the treatment of acute postoperative pain, minimization of opioid related side effects remains one of the key challenges. Therefore, this study aims at investigating the potential of adding unconditioned open-label placebos to treatment as usual as a means of reducing opioid consumption and its related side effects in patients with acute postoperative pain. Methods and Analysis: This is the protocol of an ongoing single site randomized controlled trial. The first patient was enrolled in May 2020. In total, 70 patients suffering from acute postoperative pain following dorsal lumbar interbody fusion are randomized to either a treatment as usual group or an experimental intervention group. The treatment as usual group consists of participants receiving a patient-controlled morphine pump. On day 1 and 2 post-surgery, patients in the intervention group receive, in addition to treatment as usual, two open-label placebo injections per day along with an evidence-based treatment rationale explaining the mechanisms of placebos. The primary outcome is measured by means of self-administered morphine during day 1 and 2 post-surgery. Several other outcome measures including pain intensity and adverse events as well as potential predictors of placebo response are assessed. Analysis of covariance will be used to answer the primary research question and additional statistical techniques such as generalized linear mixed models will be applied to model the temporal course of morphine consumption. Discussion: This study will provide valuable insights into the efficacy of open-label placebos in acute pain and will potentially constitute an important step toward the implementation of open-label placebos in the clinical management of acute postoperative pain. In addition, it will shed light on a cost-efficient and patient-centered strategy to reduce opioid consumption and its related side effects, without any loss in pain management efficacy. Ethics and Dissemination: The "Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz" (BASEC2020-00099) approved the study protocol. Results of the analysis will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Clinical Trial Registration: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04339023) and is listed in the Swiss national registry at kofam.ch (SNCTP000003720).

Blinding, sham, and treatment effects in randomized controlled trials for back pain in 2000-2019: A review and meta-analytic approach

BACKGROUND

Blinding aims to minimize biases from what participants and investigators know or believe. Randomized controlled trials, despite being the gold standard to evaluate treatment effect, do not generally assess the success of blinding. We investigated the extent of blinding in back pain trials and the associations between participant guesses and treatment effects.

METHODS

We did a review with PubMed/OvidMedline, 2000-2019. Eligibility criteria were back pain trials with data available on treatment effect and participants' guess of treatment. For blinding, blinding index was used as chance-corrected measure of excessive correct guess (0 for random guess). For treatment effects, within- or between-arm effect sizes were used. Analyses of investigators' guess/blinding or by treatment modality were performed exploratorily.

RESULTS

Forty trials (3899 participants) were included. Active and sham treatment groups had mean blinding index of 0.26 (95% confidence interval: 0.12, 0.41) and 0.01 (-0.11, 0.14), respectively, meaning 26% of participants in active treatment believed they received active treatment, whereas only 1% in sham believed they received sham treatment, beyond chance, that is, random guess. A greater belief of receiving active treatment was associated with a larger within-arm effect size in both arms, and ideal blinding (namely, "random guess," and "wishful thinking" that signifies both groups believing they received active treatment) showed smaller effect sizes, with correlation of effect size and summary blinding indexes of 0.35 (p = 0.028) for between-arm comparison. We observed uniformly large sham treatment effects for all modalities, and larger correlation for investigator's (un)blinding, 0.53 (p = 0.046).

CONCLUSION

Participants in active treatments in back pain trials guessed treatment identity more correctly, while those in sham treatments tended to display successful blinding. Excessive correct guesses (that could reflect weaker blinding and/or noticeable effects) by participants and investigators demonstrated larger effect sizes. Blinding and sham treatment effects on back pain need due consideration in individual trials and meta-analyses.

Conditioned open-label placebo for opioid reduction after spine surgery: a randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT

Placebo effects have traditionally involved concealment or deception. However, recent evidence suggests that placebo effects can also be elicited when prescribed transparently as "open-label placebos" (OLPs), and that the pairing of an unconditioned stimulus (eg, opioid analgesic) with a conditioned stimulus (eg, placebo pill) can lead to the conditioned stimulus alone reducing pain. In this randomized control trial, we investigated whether combining conditioning with an OLP (COLP) in the immediate postoperative period could reduce daily opioid use and postsurgical pain among patients recovering from spine surgery. Patients were randomized to COLP or treatment as usual, with both groups receiving unrestricted access to a typical opioid-based postoperative analgesic regimen. The generalized estimating equations method was used to assess the treatment effect of COLP on daily opioid consumption and pain during postoperative period from postoperative day (POD) 1 to POD 17. Patients in the COLP group consumed approximately 30% less daily morphine milligram equivalents compared with patients in the treatment as usual group during POD 1 to 17 (-14.5 daily morphine milligram equivalents; 95% CI: [-26.8, -2.2]). Daily worst pain scores were also lower in the COLP group (-1.0 point on the 10-point scale; 95% CI: [-2.0, -0.1]), although a significant difference was not detected in average daily pain between the groups (-0.8 point; 95% CI: [-1.7, 0.2]). These findings suggest that COLP may serve as a potential adjuvant analgesic therapy to decrease opioid consumption in the early postoperative period, without increasing pain.

Treating Pain With Open-Label Placebos: A Qualitative Study With Post-Surgical Pain Patients

Prior research has shown that Open Label Placebos (OLPs; that is, placebos described honestly as inactive pills) are effective for a variety of clinical conditions, including pain. However, little is known about patient attitudes towards OLPs. We conducted qualitative interviews with n = 11 patients (73% female) who recently had hand or wrist surgery and took ≥ 1 opioid pill. Interview topics included: pain management, the placebo effect, and in particular, attitudes towards OLPs. Interviews were analyzed inductively and content-coded. Five themes were identified: 1) Role of the mind in pain and illness, 2) Shortcomings of opioids are the strengths of OLPs, 3) Perceptions of OLP effectiveness, 4) Relational aspects of OLP administration, and 5) Practical considerations for OLP implementation. Most patients agreed that, because of their transparency, OLPs are ethical. Participants indicated some degree of reluctance about using OLPs, but the majority said they would take OLPs if prescribed by a doctor. Patients noted that the primary disadvantage of opioids is their potency, which can lead to addiction or side-effects; by contrast, the primary advantage of placebos is their inertness. Results suggest that OLPs appear to be well received as a postoperative pain treatment among the patients in this study. PERSPECTIVE: This qualitative study examines how hand surgery patients view OLPs, which are placebos described honestly as inactive pills. OLPs were generally well received by patients as a treatment for pain after surgery and could be considered as an adjunctive treatment to potentially reduce reliance on prescription opioids.

Effects of open-label placebos on test performance and psychological well-being in healthy medical students: a randomized controlled trial

Psychological distress is prevalent in students and can predispose to psychiatric disorders. Recent findings indicate that distress might be linked to impaired cognitive performance in students. Experimental findings in healthy participants suggest that placebo interventions can improve cognition. However, whether non-deceptive (i.e., open-label, OLP) placebos can enhance cognitive function and emotional well-being is unclear. Using a randomized-controlled design we demonstrate a positive impact of OLP on subjective well-being (i.e., stress, fatigue, and confusion) after a 21-day OLP application in healthy students during midterm exams. OLP did not improve test performance, but, within the OLP group, test performance was positively correlated with measures of general belief in the benefit of medication. These results show that OLP can counteract negative effects of acute stress on psychological well-being and might improve cognitive performance if supported by positive treatment expectations. Additionally, our findings in healthy volunteers warrant further investigation in exploring the potential of OLP in reducing stress-related psychological effects in patients. The trial was preregistered at the German Clinical Trials Register on December 20, 2017 (DRKS00013557).