Is the rationale more important than deception? A randomized controlled trial of open-label placebo analgesia

Open-Label Placebo Injection for Chronic Back Pain With Functional Neuroimaging: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Chronic back pain (CBP) is a leading cause of disability. Placebo treatments often provide as much pain relief as bona fide treatments, such as steroid injections. Open-label (honestly prescribed) placebos (OLPs) may relieve CBP without deception, but OLP mechanisms remain poorly understood.

Objective

To investigate the long-term efficacy and neurobiological mechanisms of OLP for CBP.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A randomized clinical trial of CBP with longitudinal functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) comparing OLP with usual care, with 1-year follow-up, was conducted in a university research setting and a community orthopedic clinic. Participants were individuals aged 21 to 70 years with CBP. The trial was conducted from November 2017 to August 2018, with 1-year follow-up completed by November 2019. Data analysis was performed from April 2020 to May 2024. The primary analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat sample.

Interventions

Participants randomized to OLP received a 1-time subcutaneous lumbar saline injection presented as placebo accompanied by information about the power of placebo to relieve pain, alongside their ongoing care. Usual care participants continued their ongoing care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was pain intensity (0-10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 the most intense) at 1 month posttreatment. Secondary outcomes included pain interference, depression, anxiety, anger, and sleep quality. Functional MRI was performed before and after treatment during evoked and spontaneous back pain.

Results

A total of 101 adults (52 [51.4%] females; mean [SD] age, 40.4 [15.4] years) with moderate severity CBP (mean [SD], 4.10 [1.25] intensity; duration, 9.7 [8.5] years) were enrolled. Compared with usual care, OLP reduced CBP intensity posttreatment (relative reduction, 0.61; Hedges g = 0.45; 95% CI, -0.89 to 0.04; P = .02). Through 1-year follow-up, pain relief did not persist, although significant benefits were observed for depression, anger, anxiety, and sleep disruption (Hedges g = 0.3-0.5; all P < .03). Brain responses to evoked back pain for OLP vs usual care increased in rostral anterior cingulate and ventromedial prefrontal cortex and decreased in somatomotor cortices and thalamus. During spontaneous pain, functional connectivity analyses identified OLP vs usual care increases in ventromedial prefrontal cortex connectivity to the rostral ventral medulla, a pain-modulatory brainstem nucleus. No adverse effects of treatment were reported by participants.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of OLP vs usual care, a single nondeceptive placebo injection reduced CBP intensity for 1 month posttreatment and provided benefits lasting for at least 1 year posttreatment. Brain mechanisms of OLP in a clinical population overlap with those of deceptive placebos in healthy volunteers, including engagement of prefrontal-brainstem pain modulatory pathways.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03294148.

Conclusions Regarding the Role of Expectations in Placebo Analgesia Studies May Depend on How We Investigate It: A Meta-Analysis, Systematic Review, and Proposal for Methodological Discussions

OBJECTIVE

Expectations are highlighted as a key component in placebo effects. However, there are different approaches to whether and how placebo studies should account for expectations, and the direct contribution has yet to be estimated in meta-analyses. Using different methodological approaches, this meta-analysis and systematic review examines the extent to which expectations contribute to pain in placebo studies.

METHODS

The databases PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for placebo analgesia mechanism studies with numerical measures of both expectations and pain. Thirty-one studies, comprising 34 independent study populations (1566 subjects: patients and healthy participants) were included. Two meta-analyses were conducted: meta-analysis 1, using study-level data, estimated the effect of expectation interventions without taking measures of expectations into account (expectations assumed); and meta-analysis 2, using individual-level data, estimated the direct impact of participants' expectations on pain (expectations assessed). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis 1 showed a moderate effect of expectation interventions over no expectation intervention on pain intensity (Hedges g = 0.45, I2 = 54.19). Based on 10 studies providing individual-level data, meta-analysis 2 showed that expectations predicted pain intensity in placebo and control groups ( b = 0.36, SE = 0.05), although inconsistently across study methodologies.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants' expectations contributed moderately to pain in placebo analgesia studies. However, this may largely be influenced by how we measure expectations and how their contribution is conceptualized and analyzed-both within and across studies.

Preserving the placebo effect after disclosure: A new perspective on non-deceptive placebos

The present study explores whether a particular style of placebo disclosure could serve as a tool to foster a renewed trust in one's own inherent resources and elicit a meaningful placebo effect. In a motor performance task, two placebo groups received inert transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in each of four sessions along with information on its force-enhancing properties. Before the final session, one of the placebo groups was informed about the placebo, which was portrayed as a means to unleash an inherent potential. Along with force, we systematically monitored task-specific self-efficacy to test whether this variable would be differentially modulated in the two placebo groups. Compared to two control groups, placebo groups showed higher force and self-efficacy in the last session. No differences in self-efficacy were observed in the placebo groups even after revealing the placebo procedure, suggesting that the disclosure was effective in 'safeguarding' individuals' self-efficacy. These findings may have important implications, paving the way for the use of placebos that not only are ethically permissible but also support individuals' self-efficacy.

Can observational learning reinforce open-label placebo hypoalgesia?

ABSTRACT

Previous research has indicated that an open-label placebo can reduce pain in both healthy participants and patients with chronic pain. Because nondeceptive placebos seem to be an effective and more ethical alternative to deceptive placebos, optimizing this kind of treatment is essential. Observational learning was previously shown to induce the deceptive placebo effect; therefore, this study aimed to verify its effectiveness in fortifying the open-label placebo effect. Healthy volunteers (N = 117) were randomly assigned to 4 groups: open-label placebo with observational learning (OLP + OBL), open-label placebo (OLP), deceptive placebo with observational learning (OBL), or control group. Participants underwent baseline and testing measurements, during which they self-reported pain induced by heat stimulation. Between assessments, placebo cream was openly administered in the OLP and OLP + OBL groups. The OLP + OBL group next watched a model experiencing hypoalgesia after cream application. In the OBL group, participants received placebo cream with no information about its effect, and then they watched the model. The placebo effect was successfully evoked in all experimental groups (OLP + OBL, OLP, and OBL), which confirms the effectiveness of both open-label and deceptive placebo interventions for pain reduction. However, the hypoalgesic effect was of similar magnitude in the OLP and OLP + OBL groups, which indicates that observation did not contribute to the effect. The results showed that reinforcing the open-label placebo by observational learning may be redundant, but more research is needed to confirm these findings.

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.

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.

If only they knew! A non-inferiority randomized controlled trial comparing deceptive and open-label placebo in healthy individuals

BACKGROUND

Placebo use is widespread in clinical practice. However, they are most often administered deceptively rather than openly. It is often suggested that open-label placebos (OLP) are less effective than deceptive placebos (DP). This study aimed to compare the use of DP and OLP treatments to reduce pain in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

We conducted a non-inferiority, parallel, randomized, controlled trial, which also included a nested cross-over no-treatment condition. This study was conducted at a university clinic in France.

RESULTS

We included 60 subjects and the main result shows that the OLP was not inferior to the DP by a margin of 10 mm. The mean difference between both groups regarding intensity of pain was 0.7 mm with a 95% compatibility interval (95% CI) of ]-∞; 5.4], and 97.5% CI of ]-∞; 6.3]. Secondary outcomes require cautious interpretation of the effect of placebo versus no treatment due to a time-treatment interaction.

CONCLUSION

The study indicates that OLP may perform just as well as DP and could provide support for the use of OLP as an ethical alternative to DP when they are to be used in a clinical setting. If only patients knew about the placebo nature of some treatments they are receiving, unnecessary lies could be avoided while maintaining similar placebo effects.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study is the first to show non-inferiority of placebos administered honestly, also called OLP, compared to DP in reducing pain. This suggests that OLP could be as effective as their deceptive counterparts while having the ethical advantage of not being required to lie. If deception is not a necessary condition for efficacy, OLP should be preferred over DP.

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).

Would You Take an Open-Label Placebo Pill or Give One to Your Child? Findings from a Cross-Sectional Survey

Background

Open-label placebos (OLPs), honestly prescribed regarding their inert nature, have been associated with positive health-related effects in both children and adults. However, OLPs are not always perceived by laypeople as a viable treatment option.

Methods

A brief online survey with 806 adult participants (age range: 18-75 years; 29% parents) was conducted to identify predictor variables that are associated with the willingness to take an OLP pill (criterion 1) or to give an OLP to one's child (criterion 2). The survey covered aspects including the perceived plausibility of the treatment concept for both OLPs and deceptive placebos (DPs), self-reported knowledge about placebos, the expected effectiveness of OLPs in treating emotional/ somatic problems, and attitudes concerning taking pills in general. Multiple hierarchical regressions were carried out.

Results

The expected effectiveness of OLPs in alleviating both emotional and physical ailments and the plausibility of the treatment concepts for both OLPs and DPs significantly predicted the willingness to use OLPs (R2 = 0.485). A similar finding was observed when predicting the willingness to administer an OLP to one's child (R2 = 0.443).

Conclusion

Favorable expectations regarding the reduction of emotional and somatic symptoms with OLPs, along with a strong belief in the credibility of placebo mechanisms, play a vital role in influencing the willingness to accept this kind of treatment. These factors can be incorporated into psychoeducational programs.

Open-label placebo treatment does not enhance cognitive abilities in healthy volunteers

The use of so-called 'smart drugs' such as modafinil to improve cognitive performance has recently attracted considerable attention. However, their side effects have limited user enthusiasm. Open-label placebo (OLP) treatment, i.e., inert treatments that are openly disclosed to individuals as having no active pharmacological ingredient, has been shown to improve various medical symptoms and conditions, including those related to cognitive performance. OLP treatment could therefore be an exciting alternative to pharmacological cognitive enhancers. Here, we used a randomized-controlled design to investigate the effect of a 21-day OLP treatment on several sub-domains of cognitive performance in N = 78 healthy volunteers. Subjective and objective measures of cognitive performance as well as different measures of well-being were obtained before and after the treatment period. Using a combination of classic Frequentist and Bayesian analysis approaches showed no additional benefit from OLP treatment in any of the subjective or objective measures of cognitive performance. Our study thus highlights possible limitations of OLP treatment in boosting cognitive performance in healthy volunteers. These findings are discussed in the light of expectancy-value considerations that may determine OLP efficacy.

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.

Body reprogramming for fibromyalgia and central sensitivity syndrome: A preliminary evaluation

Objectives

Central sensitivity syndrome disorders such as fibromyalgia, provoke continued debate, highlighting diagnostic and therapeutic uncertainty. The Hyland model provides a way of understanding and treating the medically unexplained symptoms of central sensitivity syndromes using complexity theory and principles of adaption in network systems. The body reprogramming is a multi-modal intervention based on the Hyland model designed for patients living with medically unexplained symptoms. This preliminary, naturalistic and single-arm service evaluation set out to evaluate outcome after attending a body reprogramming course in patients living with fibromyalgia or central sensitivity syndrome.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with fibromyalgia or central sensitivity syndrome were recruited. The body reprogramming courses consisting of eight sessions, each 2.5 h in length, were run at two study sites in England. Data were collected at baseline, post course and 3-months post course using questionnaires assessing symptomatology (FIQR/SIQR), Depression (PHQ9), Anxiety (GAD7) and quality of life (GQoL). Repeated measures t-tests were used, and all comparisons were conducted on an intention to treat basis.

Results

In total, 198 patients with a mean age of 47.73 years were enrolled on the body reprogramming courses. Statistically and clinically significant improvement were observed in the FIQR from baseline to post course (mean change: 11.28) and baseline to follow-up (mean change: 15.09). PHQ9 scores also improved significantly from baseline to post course (mean reduction 3.72) and baseline to follow-up (mean reduction 5.59).

Conclusions

Our study provides first evidence that the body reprogramming intervention is an effective approach for patients living with fibromyalgia or central sensitivity syndromes on a variety of clinical measures. Besides these promising results, important limitations of the study are discussed, and larger randomized controlled trials are clearly warranted.

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.

Task-dependent functional connectivity of pain is associated with the magnitude of placebo analgesia in pain-free individuals

BACKGROUND

Task-based functional connectivity (FC) of pain-related regions resulting from expectancy-based placebo induction has yet to be examined, limiting our understanding of regions and networks associated with placebo analgesia.

METHODS

Fifty-five healthy pain-free adults over 18 (M = 22.8 years, SD = 7.75) were recruited (65.5% women; 63.6% non-Hispanic/Latino/a/x; 58.2% White). Participants completed a baseline followed by a placebo session involving the topical application of an inactive cream in the context of an expectancy-enhancing instruction set. Noxious heat stimuli were applied to the thenar eminence of the right palm using an fMRI-safe thermode. Stimulus intensity was individually calibrated to produce pain ratings of approximately 40 on a 100-point visual analogue scale.

RESULTS

A total of 67.3% of the participants showed a reduction in pain intensity in the placebo condition with an average reduction in pain across the whole sample of 12.7%. Expected pain intensity was associated with reported pain intensity in the placebo session (b = 0.32, p = 0.004, R2  = 0.15). Voxel-wise analyses indicated seven clusters with significant activation during noxious heat stimulation at baseline (pFDR  < 0.05). Generalized psychophysiological interaction analysis suggested that placebo-related FC changes between middle frontal gyrus-superior parietal lobule during noxious stimulation were significantly associated with the magnitude of pain reduction (pFDR  < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that stronger expectancy-based placebo responses might be underpinned by greater FC among attentional and somatosensory regions.

SIGNIFICANCE

This article provides support and insight for task-dependent functional connectivity differences related to the magnitude of placebo analgesia. Our findings provide key support that the magnitude of expectation-based placebo response depends on the coupling of regions associated with somatosensory and attentional processing.

Placebos in pediatrics: A cross-sectional survey investigating physicians' perspectives

OBJECTIVE

Placebo responses are significantly higher in children than in adults, suggesting a potential underused treatment option in pediatric care. To facilitate the clinical translation of these beneficial effects, we explored physicians' current practice, opinions, knowledge, and likelihood of recommending placebos in the future.

METHODS

A cross-sectional web-based survey administered by REDCap was conducted at Boston Children's Hospital between October 2021 and March 2022. Physicians (n = 1157) were invited to participate through an email containing a link to a 23-item survey designed to assess physicians' attitudes and perceptions towards the clinical use of placebo in pediatrics.

RESULTS

From 207 (18%) returned surveys, 109 (9%) were fully completed. Most respondents (79%) believed that enhancing the therapeutic components that contribute to the placebo response may be a way of improving pediatric care. However, whereas most (62%) found placebo treatments permissible, only one-third reported recommending them. In pediatrics, placebos are typically introduced as a medicine that "might help" (43%). The most common treatments recommended to enhance placebo effects are physical therapy, vitamins, and over-the-counter analgesics. Physicians most frequently recommend placebos for occasional pain, headaches, and anxiety disorders. Finally, the great majority of physicians (87%) stated they would be more likely to recommend placebo treatments if there were safety and ethical guidelines for open-label placebos.

CONCLUSIONS

Placebo treatments seem permissible to physicians in pediatric care, but the development of safety and ethical guidelines may be necessary before physicians systematically incorporate the benefits of the placebo effect in pediatrics.

A qualitative study of imaginary pills and open-label placebos in test anxiety

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of open-label placebos (OLPs) has been increasingly demonstrated and their use holds promise for applications compatible with basic ethical principles. Taking this concept one step further an imaginary pill (IP) intervention without the use of a physical pill was developed and tested in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). To explore participants' experiences and views, we conducted the first qualitative study in the field of IPs.

METHODS

A reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) of semi-structured interviews with test anxious students (N = 20) was nested in an RCT investigating an IP and OLP intervention. In addition, open-ended questions from the RCT were evaluated (N = 114) to corroborate the RTA and pill characteristics were included to more accurately capture the IP experience.

RESULTS

Four key themes were identified: (1) attitude towards the intervention, (2) applicability of the intervention, (3) experience of effects, and (4) characteristics of the imagination. The IP intervention was well-accepted, easily applicable, and various effects, pill characteristics and appearances were described. While many participants did not desire a physical pill, either due to the absence of the imagination component or aversion to pills, the approach was considered to be cognitively and time demanding, which in turn, however, encouraged the establishment of a therapeutic ritual that protected against the increase in test anxiety during the preparation phase. OLP findings were comparable, and especially the importance of a treatment rationale was stressed in both groups, counteracting an initial ambivalent attitude. The RTA findings were supported by the open-ended questions of the RCT.

CONCLUSION

IPs appear to be a well-accepted and easily applicable intervention producing a variety of beneficial effects. Thus, the IP approach might serve as an imaginary based alternative to OLPs warranting further investigations on its application to harness placebo effects without a physical pill.

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.

Placebo effects on cutaneous pain and itch: a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental results and methodology

ABSTRACT

Placebo effects, positive treatment outcomes that go beyond treatment processes, can alter sensations through learning mechanisms. Understanding how methodological factors contribute to the magnitude of placebo effects will help define the mechanisms by which these effects occur. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental placebo studies in cutaneous pain and itch in healthy samples, focused on how differences in methodology contribute to the resulting placebo effect magnitude. We conducted meta-analyses by learning mechanism and sensation, namely, for classical conditioning with verbal suggestion, verbal suggestion alone, and observational learning, separately for pain and itch. We conducted subgroup analyses and meta-regression on the type of sensory stimuli, placebo treatment, number of acquisition and evocation trials, differences in calibrated intensities for placebo and control stimuli during acquisition, age, and sex. We replicated findings showing that a combination of classical conditioning with verbal suggestion induced larger placebo effects on pain ( k = 68, g = 0 . 59) than verbal suggestion alone ( k = 39, g = 0.38) and found a smaller effect for itch with verbal suggestion alone ( k = 7, g = 0.14). Using sham electrodes as placebo treatments corresponded with larger placebo effects on pain than when topical gels were used. Other methodological and demographic factors did not significantly affect placebo magnitudes. Placebo effects on pain and itch reliably occur in experimental settings with varied methods, and conditioning with verbal suggestion produced the strongest effects. Although methods may shape the placebo effect to some extent, these effects appear robust overall, and their underlying learning mechanisms may be harnessed for applications outside the laboratory.

The Importance of the Treatment Rationale for Pain in Animal-Assisted Interventions: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Healthy Participants

Animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) is a promising treatment approach for pain, but possible mechanisms still need to be elucidated. This study set out to investigate the analgesic effects of an animal provided with a treatment rationale in a randomized controlled trial employing a standardized experimental heat-pain paradigm. We randomly assigned 128 healthy participants to: dog treatment (DT), placebo treatment (PT), dog and placebo treatment (DPT), and no treatment (NT). Primary outcomes were heat-pain tolerance and the corresponding self-reported ratings of pain unpleasantness and intensity. Results revealed no differences in heat-pain tolerance between the conditions. However, participants in the DT condition experienced heat-pain as significantly less unpleasant at the limit of their tolerance compared to participants in the NT condition (estimate = -0.96, CI = -1.58 to 0.34, P = .010). Participants in the DT condition also showed lower ratings of pain intensity at the limit of their tolerance compared to participants in the NT condition (estimate = -0.44, CI = -0.89 to 0.02, P = .060). This study indicates that a dog has analgesic effects on pain perception when integrated into the treatment rationale. We assume that providing a treatment rationale regarding the animal is important in AAIs for pain. PERSPECTIVE: This study shows that the presence of an animal is not sufficient for animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) to have an analgesic effect on pain unless they are provided with a treatment rationale. This could imply that not only the animal but also contextual factors are important in AAIs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT04361968.

A randomized controlled trial of effects of open-label placebo compared to double-blind placebo and treatment-as-usual on symptoms of allergic rhinitis

Placebo effects are known for numerous clinical symptoms. Until recently, deception of placebos was thought to be essential for placebo effects, but intriguing new studies suggest that even placebos without concealment (open-label placebos) may help patients with various clinical disorders. Most of those studies compared open-label placebo treatments with no treatment conditions (or treatment "as usual"). Given that open-label placebo studies obviously cannot be blinded, additional control studies are important to assess the efficacy of open-label placebos. The current study aimed to fil this gap by comparing open-label with conventional double-blind placebos and treatment as usual. Patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were randomly divided in different groups. The first group received open-label placebos, the second double-blind placebos, and the third was treated as usual. After 4 weeks, results demonstrated that open-label placebos improved allergic symptoms more than treatment-as-usual and even more as double-blind placebos. In addition, we observed that allergic symptoms in general (and also the open-label placebo effects) were reduced by the Covid-19 pandemic. The results suggest that seasonal allergic symptoms may be relieved by open-label placebos. We discuss these results by addressing possible different mechanisms of open-label and conventionally concealed placebo treatments.

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).

Teenagers' and parental attitudes towards the use of placebo pills

The placebo response a significant therapeutic improvement after a placebo intervention - can be high in children. The question arises of how optimal advantages of placebo treatment in pediatric clinical care be achieved. In this era of shared-decision making, it is important to be aware of patients' and parental attitudes. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to assess teenagers' and parental views on the use of placebo pills in pediatric clinical care. All patients (aged 12-18 years) and parents of children (aged 0-18 years), visiting the pediatric outpatient clinic between March 2020 through December 2020, were invited to participate in this study multicenter survey study. Of 1644 distributed questionnaires: 200/478 (47%) teenagers and 456/1166 (45%) parents filled out the complete survey. More parents were positive towards prescribing placebo medication than teenagers (80% vs. 71%, p = .019), especially when the clinician disclosed the use of a placebo to parents and teenagers, respectively (76% vs. 55%, p = .019). Increasing age of teenagers was positively associated with the willingness for placebo interventions (OR 0.803, 95%CI 0.659-0.979), as was a higher level of parental education (OR 0.706, 95%CI 0.526-0.949).  Conclusion: This study emphasizes the willingness of teenagers and parents to receive placebo medication. Placebo medication becoming more acceptable and integrated into daily care may contribute to a decrease in medication use. What is Known: • A placebo is a treatment without inherent power to produce any therapeutic effect, but can result in significant therapeutic improvement, the so-called placebo response. • Treatment response rates after placebo interventions in children can be high, ranging from 41 to 46% in pediatric trials. What is New: • Most teenagers (71%) and parents (80%) find it appropriate for healthcare professionals to prescribe placebo medication. • Compared to adult care, pediatrics has a unique feature to disclose placebo treatment to parents while concealing it for the young patient: the majority of teenagers (85%) and parents (91%) agree to disclose placebo treatment to parents exclusively.

Blinding and sham control methods in trials of physical, psychological, and self-management interventions for pain (article II): a meta-analysis relating methods to trial results

ABSTRACT

Sham interventions in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of physical, psychological, and self-management (PPS) therapies for pain are highly variable in design and believed to contribute to poor internal validity. However, it has not been formally tested whether the extent to which sham controls resemble the treatment under investigation consistently affects trial outcomes, such as effect sizes, differential attrition, participant expectancy, and blinding effectiveness. Placebo- or sham-controlled RCTs of PPS interventions of clinical pain populations were searched in 12 databases. The similarity of control interventions to the experimental treatment was rated across 25 features. Meta-regression analyses assessed putative links between employed control interventions, observed effect sizes in pain-related outcomes, attrition, and blinding success. The sample included 198 unique control interventions, dominated by manual therapy and chronic musculoskeletal pain research. Meta-analyses indicated small-to-moderate benefits of active treatments over control interventions, across subgroups of manual therapies, exercise, and rehabilitation, and psychological intervention trials. Multiple meta-regression modelling demonstrated that similarity between sham control and tested interventions predicted variability in pain-related outcomes, attrition, and blinding effectiveness. Influential variables were differences relating to the extent of intervention exposure, participant experience, and treatment environments. The results support the supposed link between blinding methods and effect sizes, based on a large and systematically sourced overview of methods. However, challenges to effective blinding are complex and often difficult to discern from trial reports. Nonetheless, these insights have the potential to change trial design, conduct, and reporting and will inform guideline development.

Supplementing transcranial direct current stimulation to local infiltration series for refractory neuropathic craniocephalic pain: A randomized controlled pilot trial

Background

Some patients with neuralgia of cranial nerves with otherwise therapy-refractory pain respond to invasive therapy with local anesthetics. Unfortunately, pain regularly relapses despite multimodal pain management. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) may prolong pain response due to neuro-modulatory effects.

Methods

This controlled clinical pilot trial randomized patients to receive anodal, cathodal or sham-tDCS stimulation prior to local anesthetic infiltration. Pain attenuation, quality-of-life and side effects were assessed and compared with historic controls to estimate effects of tDCS stimulation setting.

Results

Altogether, 17 patients were randomized into three groups with different stimulation protocols. Relative reduction of pain intensity in per protocol treated patients were median 73%, 50% and 69% in anodal, cathodal and sham group, respectively (p = 0.726). Compared with a historic control group, a lower rate of responders with 50% reduction of pain intensity indicates probable placebo effects (OR 3.41 stimulation vs. non-stimulation setting, NNT 3.63). 76.9% (n = 10) of tDCS patients reported mild side-effects. Of all initially included 17 patients, 23.5% (n = 4) withdrew their study participation with highest proportion in the cathodal group (n = 3). A sample size calculation for a confirmatory trial revealed 120 patients using conservative estimations.

Discussion

This pilot trial does not support series of anodal tDCS as neuro-modulatory treatment to enhance pain alleviation of local anesthetic infiltration series. Notably, results may indicate placebo effects of tDCS settings. Feasibility of studies in this population was limited due to relevant drop-out rates. Anodal tDCS warrants further confirmation as neuro-modulatory pain treatment option.

Time to say good-bye? Homeopathy, skeptics and thoughts on how to proceed

BACKGROUND

Although homeopathy is frequently used by many health professionals, there are ongoing debates concerning its effectiveness. Currently no unifying explanation how homeopathy works exists. Homeopaths are frequently challenged by skeptics, and in public opinion, the swan song for homeopathy is frequently sung.

CONTENT

Regarding the efficacy of homeopathy, several well-designed RCTs, observational studies, case studies, and case reports, have been published, demonstrating its clinical efficacy. Regarding its mode of action, the discovery of the working principle of homeopathy would be a major advance towards a thorough scientific recognition of homeopathy. Basic research has already discovered some milestones, e.g., significant and reproducible effects of homeopathic preparations in plants.

SUMMARY

To overcome the distrust of skeptics and public opinion, the support of basic research is indispensable. Second, homeopaths should continue to design prospective randomized clinical studies in order to create robust clinical evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy. Third, they should continue to publish their treatment outcomes, as these publications document clinical effectiveness beyond doubts about its mode of action.

OUTLOOK

These measures will not only support homeopaths in continuing their clinical work, but may lead to a better recognition of this treatment in both the scientific world and the public.

Imaginary pills and open-label placebos can reduce test anxiety by means of placebo mechanisms

Placebos have been shown to be beneficial for various conditions even if administered with full transparency. Hence, so-called open-label placebos (OLPs) offer a new way to harness placebo effects ethically. To take this concept one step further, this study aimed at evaluating placebo effects without the use of a physical placebo, i.e., by imagining taking a pill. Healthy students (N = 173) with self-reported test anxiety were either randomized to an imaginary pill (IP; n = 55), an OLP (n = 59) or a control group (CG; n = 59). Both intervention groups were instructed to take two pills daily for three weeks. Primary outcome was test anxiety, secondary outcomes were sleep quality, general well-being and test performance. Groups test anxiety differed at study-endpoint, F(2,169) = 11.50, p < .001. Test anxiety was lower in the intervention groups compared to the CG, t(169) = - 4.44, p < .001, d = - 0.71. The interventions did not differ significantly, i.e., both were similarly efficacious, t(169) = 0.61, p = .540, d = 0.11. The interaction between group and time in explaining test anxiety was significant, F(5,407.93) = 6.13, p < .001. OLPs and IPs reduced test anxiety in healthy participants compared to the CG. This finding opens the door for a novel and ethical method to harness placebo effects.

Outcome Expectancies, Effects, and Mechanisms of Brief Training in Mindfulness Meditation vs. Loving-Kindness Meditation vs a Control Condition for Pain Management: A Randomized Pilot Study

This study investigated the analgesic effects of a single session of mindfulness meditation (MM) and loving-kindness meditation (LKM) relative to a control. A total of 100 adults with chronic or current problematic pain completed a survey and were randomized to a 20-minute MM, LKM, or audiobook control. Co-primary outcomes of pain intensity and unpleasantness and mediators of mindfulness and self-compassion were assessed pre- and posttraining. Expectancies were assessed pretraining. Pain type (chronic vs current problematic) was a covariate. Relative to the control, higher expectancies were reported for MM and LKM (P < .001). MM (d = 0.41, P = .032) and LKM (d = 0.38, P = .027) had medium effects on pain intensity, with greater decreases than control (d = 0.05, P = .768). All conditions had small effects on unpleasantness. Mindful observing increased more within MM (d = 0.52, P = .022) and the control (d = 0.50, P = .011) than LKM (d = 0.12, P = .50); self-compassion increased more in LKM (d = 0.36, P = .042) than MM (d = 0.27, P = .201) and the control (d = 0.22, P = .249). The mediation models were nonsignificant. Pain type was a nonsignificant covariate. Overall, MM and LKM were associated with positive expectancies and small-medium pain intensity reductions, which did not differ by pain type. Although MM and LKM were associated with changes in theorized mediators, these changes did not underlie improvement.

Do expectations influence pain? Recognizing Irving Kirsch's contribution to our understanding of pain

Pain is a universal experience that can take different forms, and it can be acute or chronic. Experimental pain, such as heat pain, can help us better understand the pain experience, as it induces transient, but robust central sensitization in participants. Central sensitization is considered a key underlying concept in the development and maintenance of chronic pain and is defined as an overly effective transmission of nociception in the central nervous system. Expectations can influence perceived pain intensity and treatment success. Irving Kirsch's work in the field of experimental pain has greatly contributed to our understanding of how expectations influence the pain experience. In this article, we present some of Kirsch's landmark studies in this area and discuss their (clinical) implications.

"I would love to be 'discredited' like this more often": An interview with Irving Kirsch

This interview with Professor Irving Kirsch took place in late August, 2022. He recently turned 80 years old and agreed to focus his interview on topics and areas that illustrate his influence on the field of hypnosis. Professor Kirsch discusses the influences that shaped him as a person and scientist; what unites his theoretical and research work on hypnosis, placebo, and antidepressants. He also addresses the importance of response expectancies, why clinicians should learn hypnosis and what he considers the source of his greatest personal and professional fulfillments.

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.

Irving Kirsch opens a window on antidepressant medications

When it comes to antidepressant medications - popular, backbone drugs of modern psychiatry - even learned scholars and savvy clinicians find it difficult to separate honest, rigorous research from that which thrives on hidden agendas and ulterior motives. Fortunately, a mounting corpus of data-based studies, mostly meta-analyses, casts new and critical light on the clinical efficacy, side effects, and therapeutic outcomes of antidepressants. Spearheading these efforts over the past few decades, Irving Kirsch and colleagues have challenged the hegemonic view of antidepressants as an effective therapeutic intervention. Notably, Kirsch illuminates the small difference between antidepressants and placebos in mitigating depression-a difference that may be statistically significant yet fails to reach clinical significance. This piece sketches the important contributions Kirsch has made to the scientific understanding of antidepressant medications.

The Hand-Withdrawal-Method - An adapted and simplified method of limits for behavioral heat pain assessment

The method-of-limits (MLI) is an established psychophysical procedure, for example for determining thermal thresholds. The standard MLI relies on fixating the thermode at the stimulation site by means of a strap and requires the participant to terminate the increase in heat by pressing a button. This, however, raises concerns regarding safety and task complexity in specific populations, such as cognitively impaired individuals, people with high fear of pain or young children (< 6 years). In this study, we aimed at developing a simplified version of the commonly used MLI for testing heat pain threshold (HPT) and tolerance (HPTol), and at validating it as a first step in healthy adults. Heating is terminated by withdrawing the hand from the heat probe, thereby ensuring maximum control and safety. For validation, HPTs and HPTols were assessed with the novel "hand-withdrawal-method" (HWM) and compared to the standard MLI, using a within-subject design. Additionally, as one potential research area in which the HWM may be used, we explored expectancy-induced placebo hypoalgesic effects by comparing results of standard MLI with those of HWM. Our data confirm good concordance between the 2 methods. For none of the outcomes significant differences between the 2 methods were found. PERSPECTIVE: In the present study in healthy adults, an adapted simplified and safe method of limits was demonstrated to be equivalent to the standard method-of-limits. This novel behavioral "hand-withdrawal-method" seems promising for future investigations of pain sensitivity and placebo effects, especially for specific populations such as young children.

Assessing the impact of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) protocol and Emotional Resilience Skills Training (ERST) among diverse public safety personnel

BACKGROUND

Public safety personnel (PSP; e.g., border services personnel, correctional workers, firefighters, paramedics, police, public safety communicators) are frequently exposed to potentially psychologically traumatic events. Such events contribute to substantial and growing challenges from posttraumatic stress injuries (PTSIs), including but not limited to posttraumatic stress disorder.

METHODS

The current protocol paper describes the PSP PTSI Study (i.e., design, measures, materials, hypotheses, planned analyses, expected implications, and limitations), which was originally designed to evaluate an evidence-informed, proactive system of mental health assessment and training among Royal Canadian Mounted Police for delivery among diverse PSP (i.e., firefighters, municipal police, paramedics, public safety communicators). Specifically, the PSP PTSI Study will: (1) adapt, implement, and assess the impact of a system for ongoing (i.e., annual, monthly, daily) evidence-based assessments; (2) evaluate associations between demographic variables and PTSI; (3) longitudinally assess individual differences associated with PTSI; and, (4) assess the impact of providing diverse PSP with a tailored version of the Emotional Resilience Skills Training originally developed for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in mitigating PTSIs based on the Unified Protocol for the Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders. Participants are assessed pre- and post-training, and then at a follow-up 1-year after training. The assessments include clinical interviews, self-report surveys including brief daily and monthly assessments, and daily biometric data. The current protocol paper also describes participant recruitment and developments to date.

DISCUSSION

The PSP PTSI Study is an opportunity to implement, test, and improve a set of evidence-based tools and training as part of an evidence-informed solution to protect PSP mental health. The current protocol paper provides details to inform and support translation of the PSP PTSI Study results as well as informing and supporting replication efforts by other researchers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Hypotheses Registration: aspredicted.org, #90136. Registered 7 March 2022-Prospectively registered.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05530642. Registered 1 September 2022-Retrospectively registered. The subsequent PSP PTSI Study results are expected to benefit the mental health of all participants and, ultimately, all PSP.

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.

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.

"Let's see what happens:"-Women's experiences of open-label placebo treatment for menopausal hot flushes in a randomized controlled trial

Open-label (honestly prescribed) placebos are an ethical way to evoke placebo effects in patients. As part of a mixed-methods study, we conducted in-depth interviews with eight menopausal women who underwent and benefitted from open-label placebo treatment in a randomized-controlled trial of hot flushes. Data were analyzed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. We found that the women had low expectations about the placebo treatment yet endorsed what they referred to as “hope” and openness to “see what happens”. Recording hot flushes via the symptom diary was viewed as a valuable opportunity for self-examination and appraising outcomes. Receiving relief from the placebo treatment empowered women and enhanced their sense of control and agency. In summary, participants’ initial openness towards placebos, their hopes to get better, monitoring symptoms closely, and taking the initiative to address symptoms were components of a positive open-label placebo experience.

Can placebos reduce intrusive memories?

After traumatic experiences, intrusive memories can flash back and evoke significant distress. Here, we investigated whether the frequency and severity of intrusions can be reduced by the provision of placebo. After the (online) exposure to the trauma-film paradigm, healthy participants (N = 112) received deceptive placebo (DP), open-label placebo (OLP), or no treatment. In the DP group, participants were led to believe to receive a dopamine-modulating drug, which was supposed to disrupt the consolidation of traumatic memories, although they in fact received the same placebo tablets as the OLP group for one week. The results show that the groups did not differ in the frequency of intrusive memories after one week. However, participants receiving OLP reported a significantly reduced intensity of intrusions as compared to DP. Across groups, negative expectations about the intensity and controllability of intrusions were associated with a higher frequency of intrusions, higher distress, higher burden, and more negative appraisal. The results suggest that expectations play an important role in the emergence of intrusive memories and that some of the disabling aspects of intrusive memories can be reduced by placebo. This may carry clinical potential because placebos are an accessible, cost-effective intervention to reduce the risk of intrusive memories.

‘It's not my greengrocer, it's someone from the medical profession’: A qualitative study regarding acceptability of deceptive and open‐label placebo prescribing in France

OBJECTIVES

To explore participants' views regarding clinical use of deceptive placebo (DP) and open-label placebo (OLP) treatments.

DESIGN

Qualitative thematic analysis.

METHODS

We conducted eight semi-structured interviews with healthy participants in an experimental trial comparing the efficacy of OLP and DP (Clinical trials n°NCT03934138). Interviewees' opinions were solicited following administration of placebos during the trial. Interviews were analysed using data-driven analysis.

RESULTS

We identified three themes. First, participants considered trust central in judging a placebo treatment to be acceptable. They expressed the importance of an implicit trust both in their health care professionals' (HCPs') competency as well as in the profession at large. A second theme was the perception of how placebo treatments might solve health problems. Acceptability of both types of placebo treatments was dependent on the perception patients had about the treatment solving their problem and/or doubts regarding the effectiveness of placebos The third theme encompassed perceived risks associated with placebo prescribing. Some comments viewed placebos positively as facilitating reduced medication intake. However, participants also identified the potential of placebos to generate adverse side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment acceptability by patients is a pre-requisite, alongside effectiveness, to harness OLPs in clinical care. Our study identified the importance of trust in HCPs prescribing placebos, the clinical effectiveness of placebos and the potential risks of these interventions in assessing their acceptability. Future research is needed to explore the contexts in which placebos might be used, and how best to communicate information about placebo interventions.

Experiences of Patients Taking Conditioned Open-Label Placebos for Reduction of Postoperative Pain and Opioid Exposure After Spine Surgery

BACKGROUND

Pain after spine surgery is difficult to manage, often requiring the use of opioid analgesics. While traditional "deceptive" or concealed placebo has been studied in trials and laboratory experiments, the acceptability and patient experience of taking honestly prescribed placebos, such as "open-label" placebo (non-deceptive placebo), or conditioned placebo (pairing placebo with another active pharmaceutical) is relatively unexamined.

METHODS

Qualitative thematic analysis was performed using semi-structured, post-treatment interviews with spine surgery patients (n = 18) who had received conditioned open-label placebo (COLP) during the first 2-3 weeks after surgery as part of a RCT. Interview transcripts were reviewed by 3 investigators using an immersion/crystallization approach, followed by iterative large-group discussions with additional investigators, to identify, refine, and codify emergent themes.

RESULTS

Patients' experiences and perceptions of COLP efficacy varied widely. Some emergent themes included the power of the mind over pain, how COLP might provide distraction from or agency over pain, bandwidth required and engagement with COLP, and its modulation of opioid tapering, as well as negative attitudes toward opioids and pill taking in general. Other themes included uncertainty about COLP efficacy, observations of how personality may relate to COLP efficacy, and a recognition of the greater impact of COLP on reduction of opioid use rather than on pain itself. Interestingly, participant uncertainty, disbelief, and skepticism were not necessarily associated with greater opioid consumption or worse pain.

CONCLUSION

Participants provided insights into the experience of COLP which may help to guide its future utilization to manage acute pain and tapering from opioids.

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.

Counterconditioning as Treatment to Reduce Nocebo Effects in Persistent Physical Symptoms: Treatment Protocol and Study Design

Persistent physical symptoms have a high prevalence and a large impact for patients and society. To date, treatment effects for these symptoms are often limited. Nocebo effects (i.e., negative outcomes that are not attributable to active treatment components) have a substantial influence on treatment success and can be established via learning through classical conditioning. Therefore, interventions aimed at reducing nocebo effects by means of counterconditioning, in which an alternative association (inhibiting the previous association) is learned, could be a promising method for improving physical symptoms. In experimental studies, counterconditioning has been shown promising in reducing experimentally-induced nocebo effects on pain and itch. Application of counterconditioning procedures to reduce nocebo effects on clinical symptoms has yet to be researched. This paper provides a protocol of a 6-week counterconditioning intervention aimed at reducing nocebo effects and clinical pain in patients with fibromyalgia. A study in patients with fibromyalgia is proposed to examine the feasibility and potential effectiveness of this counterconditioning intervention as a novel treatment method for reducing nocebo effects and generalization to clinical pain symptoms. Results can help design an optimized treatment protocol for reducing nocebo effects, based on the experiences of participants and the first indications of treatment efficacy.

Lack of Effects of the Presence of a Dog on Pain Perception in Healthy Participants-A Randomized Controlled Trial

Animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) have been shown to be effective in the treatment of pain. Studies suggest that relationships with animals can have comparable qualities to relationships with humans and that this enables animals to provide social support. Further, the presence of an animal can strengthen the therapeutic alliance between patients and treatment providers. This suggests that the analgesic effects of AAI might be mediated by social support from an animal or by strengthening the alliance between the patient and the treatment provider. To test these assumptions, we examined the effects of the presence of a dog on experimentally induced pain in a pain assessment and a pain therapy context. Hundred thirty-two healthy participants were randomly assigned to the conditions “pain,” “pain + dog,” “pain + placebo,” or “pain + placebo + dog.” We collected baseline and posttreatment measurements of heat-pain tolerance and the heat-pain threshold and of the corresponding subjective ratings of heat-pain intensity and unpleasantness as well as of participants' perceptions of the study investigator. The primary outcome was heat-pain tolerance. The presence of the dog did not influence the primary outcome (“pain” vs. “pain + dog”: difference = 0.04, CI = −0.66 to 0.74, p = 0.905; “pain + placebo” vs. “pain + placebo + dog”: difference = 0.43, CI = −0.02 to 0.88, p = 0.059). Participants did also not perceive the study investigator to be more trustworthy in the presence of the dog (“pain” vs. “pain + dog”: difference = 0.10, CI = −0.67 to 0.87, p = 0.796; “pain + placebo” vs. “pain + placebo + dog”: difference = 0.11, CI = −0.43 to 0.64, p = 0.695). The results indicate that the mere presence of a dog does not contribute to pain reduction and that the analgesic effects of AAI that previous studies have found is not replicated in our study as AAI did not increase perceived social support and had no effect on the alliance between the participant and the treatment provider. We assume that the animal most likely needs to be an integrated and plausible part of the treatment rationale so that participants are able to form a treatment-response expectation toward AAI.

Clinical Trial Registration: This study was preregistered as a clinical trial on www.clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: NCT0389814).

Open-Label Placebo Treatment for Experimental Pain: A Randomized-Controlled Trial with Placebo Acupuncture and Placebo Pills

Objective: An open-label placebo (OLP) is a placebo treatment in which the patient is aware that the treatment is a placebo. OLPs are considered effective for reducing pain, and previous studies have shown a stronger placebo effect for placebo acupuncture than for placebo pills. In this study, the authors compared the analgesic effects of OLP pills, OLP acupuncture, and a no treatment condition in healthy participants, and then examined the factors contributing to the OLP effect. Design: Randomized controlled crossover trial. Settings/Location: College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Subjects: 34 healthy participants. Intervention: Participants received three different treatments ("OLP-pill," "OLP-acupuncture," and "no treatment") on three separate days in random order. Outcome Measurements: Before and after the treatment, heat pain stimuli were applied to the participants' hands, and pain tolerance, intensity, and unpleasantness were measured using a visual analog scale (range, 0-10). Results: Data of 31 participants were included in the analysis. The authors found significant analgesic effects of the placebo pill and placebo acupuncture in the OLP condition. Regression analyses revealed that expectations regarding treatment and practitioner identity influenced the analgesic effects of OLP acupuncture. There was no adverse event. Conclusions: Expectations regarding treatment and practitioner identity influenced the analgesic effect of placebo acupuncture without deception. These findings provide new information regarding the cognitive factors underlying pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments. Clinical Trial Registration Number: KCT0004928.