The beneficial effect of positive treatment expectations on pharmacological migraine prophylaxis

Preoperative Anxiolysis and Treatment Expectation (PATE Trial): open-label placebo treatment to reduce preoperative anxiety in female patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery - study protocol for a bicentric, prospective, randomized-controlled trial

One of the most common concerns of patients undergoing surgery is preoperative anxiety, with a prevalence of up to 48%. The effects of preoperative anxiety continue beyond the preoperative period and are associated with more severe postoperative pain and poorer treatment outcomes. Treatment options for preoperative anxiety are often limited as sedatives cause side effects and their efficacy remains controversial. Placebo research has shown that optimization of positive treatment expectations, as can be achieved through placebo administration and education, has clinically relevant effects on preoperative anxiety, pain and treatment outcomes. As the administration of masked placebos raises ethical questions, clinical studies have increasingly focused on the use of open, non-deceptive placebo administration (open-label placebo, OLP). The use of OLPs to reduce preoperative anxiety and modify clinically relevant postoperative outcomes has not yet been investigated. This bicentric, prospective, randomized-controlled clinical trial (PATE Trial; German Registry for Clinical Studies DRKS00033221), an associated project of the Collaborative Research Center (CRC) 289 "Treatment Expectation", aims to alleviate preoperative anxiety by optimizing positive treatment expectations facilitated by OLP. Furthermore, this study examines a potential enhancement of these effects through aspects of observational learning, operationalized by a positive expectation-enhancing video. In addition, patient's perspective on the self-efficacy and appropriateness of OLPs prior to surgery will be assessed. To achieve these objectives, female patients will be randomized into three groups before undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery. One group receives the OLP with a positive rationale conveyed by a study physician. A second group receives the same intervention, OLP administration and rationale provided by a physician, and additionally watches a video on OLP presenting a satisfied patient. A third group receives standard treatment as usual (TAU). Outcome measures will be effects on preoperative anxiety and postoperative experience, particularly visceral and somatic postoperative pain. As the non-deceptive administration of placebos; when indicated; may yield positive outcomes without side effects, and as current treatment of preoperative anxiety is limited, evidence from clinical placebo research has the potential to improve outcomes and patient experience in the surgical setting.

Influence of Role Expectancy on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Migraine: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

It is usually assumed that an individual's classification as a patient or a healthy person is determined by the presence or absence of disease, but little is known about whether the mere awareness of being a patient or a healthy control can play an important role for reporting outcomes.

Objective

To investigate whether assignment to the role of a patient or a healthy control has an effect on patient-reported outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This single center, double-blind, 3-group randomized clinical trial included consecutive patients from a tertiary headache clinic based at a single center in Germany who were invited to participate between October 2019 and June 2023. Statistical analysis was performed from January to March 2024.

Intervention

Patients with migraine were randomized into 2 groups. The first group was told that this study was centered on migraine symptoms, whereas the second group was told that healthy controls were being sought for a study about patients with vertigo. A third group of age- and sex-matched headache-free participants served as controls. All participants viewed 2 standardized roller coaster videos and provided ratings of their perceived levels of motion sickness and dizziness.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was self-reported vestibular symptoms. Secondary outcomes included differences in motion sickness, headache burden, and migraine disability. Outcomes were assessed using standardized questionnaires.

Results

The final sample included 366 participants: 122 patients with migraine assigned the role of patient (MP) (migraine as patient): mean [SD] age, 37.56 [12.93] years; 105 [86.1%] female), 122 patients with migraine assigned the role of healthy participant (MH) (migraine as healthy): mean [SD] age, 37.03 [13.10] years; 107 [87.7%] female), and 122 headache-free controls (HC): mean [SD] age, 37.55 [11.56] years; 100 [82.0%] female). The assigned role of the individuals with migraine (MP vs MH) had a significant effect on self-disclosure of (1) estimation that symptoms (dizziness) will occur under specific conditions (self-reported vestibular symptoms: 79 MP [64.8%]; 29 MH [23.8%]; 9 HC [7.4%]; P < .001), (2) the increase of such symptoms (dizziness) after viewing the roller coaster video, and (3) the reported frequency (median [IQR] self-reported monthly headache days for MP: 7 [4-15] days; for MH: 5 [2-10] days; P = .008) and severity (median [IQR] migraine disability assessment score for MP: 35 [20-64] points; for MH: 25 [11-47] points; P = .005) of migraine symptoms. Statistically significant changes were also found for self-reported headache frequency and disability caused by migraine.

Conclusions and Relevance

This randomized clinical trial found an effect of expectations regarding the role of a patient with respect to clinical and study outcomes. These findings suggest that role expectations should be taken into account when, for example, invasive treatments are discussed.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06322550.

Resistant and refractory migraine: clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and management

Migraine is a leading cause of disability worldwide. A minority of individuals with migraine develop resistant or refractory conditions characterised by ≥ 8 monthly days of debilitating headaches and inadequate response, intolerance, or contraindication to ≥3 or all preventive drug classes, respectively. Resistant and refractory migraine are emerging clinical definitions stemming from better knowledge of the pathophysiology of migraine and from the advent of migraine-specific preventive treatments. Resistant migraine mostly results from drug failures, while refractory migraine has complex and still unknown mechanisms that impair the efficacy of preventive treatments. Individuals with resistant migraine can be treated with migraine-specific preventive drugs. The management of refractory migraine is challenging and often unsuccessful, being based on combinations of different drugs and non-pharmacological treatment. Future research should aim to identify individuals at risk of developing treatment failures, prevent the condition, investigate the mechanisms of refractoriness to treatments, and find effective treatment strategies.

Placebo and nocebo in the treatment of migraine: How much does real world effectiveness depend on contextual effects?

PURPOSE

Treatments in medicine impact individuals beyond their intended effects, due to phenomena such as the placebo and nocebo effects. The placebo effect arises from the positive expectation of a treatment being beneficial, while the nocebo effect stems from the negative expectation of a treatment causing harm. Both in real-world practice and clinical trials, treatments can lead to outcomes unrelated to their intended mechanism of action, which we categorize as placebo and nocebo responses. These responses, combined with the inherent fluctuation in a condition's natural progression, regression to the mean, and random comorbidities, make up a significant part of the therapeutic experience. Particularly in pain management, placebo and nocebo effects play a substantial role. By addressing modifiable contextual factors such as patient expectations, lifestyle choices, and the therapeutic relationship, healthcare providers can enhance the effectiveness of migraine treatments, paving the way for a more comprehensive, individualized approach to patient care. We must also consider non-modifiable factors like personal experiences, beliefs, and information from social media and the internet.

CONCLUSION

This review offers a summary of our current understanding of the placebo and nocebo effects in migraine management.

Sustained response of galcanezumab in migraine prevention: Patient-level data from a post hoc analysis in patients with episodic or chronic migraine

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate, at population and individual patient levels, the sustained response of reduction in migraine headache days in patients with migraine treated with galcanezumab.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of double-blind galcanezumab studies in patients with migraine: two 6-month episodic migraine (EM; EVOLVE-1/EVOLVE-2), one 3-month chronic migraine (CM; REGAIN), and one 3-month treatment-resistant migraine (CONQUER). Patients received monthly subcutaneous galcanezumab 120 mg (after 240 mg initial loading dose), galcanezumab 240 mg, or placebo. In the EM and CM studies, the proportions of patients with ≥50% and ≥75% (EM only) reduction from baseline in average monthly migraine headache days from Months 1 to 3 and Months 4 to 6 were evaluated. A mean monthly response rate was estimated. The sustained effect was defined as maintaining ≥50% response for ≥3 consecutive months in the patient-level data for EM and CM.

RESULTS

A total of 3348 patients with EM or CM from the EVOLVE-1/EVOLVE-2 (placebo, n = 894, galcanezumab, n = 879), REGAIN (placebo, n = 558, galcanezumab, n = 555), and CONQUER (EM: placebo, n = 132, galcanezumab, n = 137; CM: placebo, n = 98, galcanezumab, n = 95) studies were included. Patients were predominantly female, White, and had monthly migraine headache day averages ranging from 9.1 to 9.5 days (EM) and 18.1 to 19.6 days (CM). In patients with EM and CM, 19.0% and 22.6% of galcanezumab-treated patients, respectively, had significantly higher maintenance of ≥50% response for all months in the double-blind period compared to 8.0% and 1.5% of placebo-treated patients. The odds ratios (OR) of achieving clinical response for EM and CM were double with galcanezumab (OR = 3.0 [95% CI 1.8, 4.8] and OR = 6.3 [95% CI 1.7, 22.7], respectively). At the individual patient level, of patients who had ≥75% response at Month 3 in the galcanezumab 120 and 240 mg dose groups and placebo group, 39.9% (55/138) and 43.0% (61/142), respectively, of galcanezumab-treated patients maintained ≥75% response during Months 4-6 compared to 32.7% (51/156) with placebo.

CONCLUSION

More galcanezumab-treated patients achieved ≥50% response within the first 3 months of treatment compared to placebo; responses were sustained during Months 4-6. The odds of achieving ≥50% response were double with galcanezumab.

[Placebo effects in analgesia : Influence of expectations on the efficacy and tolerability of analgesic treatment]

Expectations of patients influence the perception and neuronal processing of acute and chronic pain and modulate the effectiveness of analgesic treatment. The expectation of treatment is not only the most important determinant of placebo analgesia. Expectations of treatment also influence the efficacy and tolerability of "active" pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of pain. Recent insights into the psychological and neurobiological mechanisms underlying the clinically relevant effects of treatment expectations enable and call for the systematic integration and modulation of treatment expectations into analgesic treatment concepts. Such a strategy promises to optimize analgesic treatment and to prevent or reduce the burden of unwanted side effects and the misuse of analgesics, particularly of opioids. This review highlights the current concepts, recent achievements and also challenges and key open research questions.

Meta-regression to explain the placebo effects in clinical trials of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention

Background: Commonly used methods of comparison (e.g. network meta-analyses) require common comparator(s) across trials, such as placebo in placebo-controlled trials. Recent literature indicates that route of administration differences across placebo arms of clinical trials in pain disorders may contribute to differences in placebo effect.Methods: We conducted a meta-regression on placebo data from pivotal clinical trials of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention to quantify the impact of route of administration, migraine type (episodic/chronic), and number of prior treatment failures on placebo reduction in monthly migraine days (MMDs) across weeks 1-12 of treatment. A systematic literature review of Embase, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and grey literature conducted in June 2021 identified 14 relevant, randomized placebo-controlled trials for analysis.Results: After testing models with different covariates, a meta-regression was fitted to the extracted placebo data with the covariates of route of administration, migraine type, and proportion of patients with ≥2 prior preventive treatment failures. An intravenous route of administration for the placebo arm was a predictor for higher MMD reduction. Predictors of lower MMD reduction were migraine type (episodic migraine) and a higher proportion of patients having ≥2 failed preventive treatments.Conclusions: The efficacy of intravenous anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies are likely underestimated, and differences in the route of administration of placebo may necessitate use of alternative methods that do not assume the presence of a common comparator when comparing anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in migraine prevention. Further research into the contextual effects of the placebo effect is warranted.

Review article: exclude or expose? The paradox of conceptually opposite treatments for irritable bowel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a heterogeneous disorder of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) maintained by interacting biological, psychological, and social processes. Interestingly, there are two contrasting yet evidence-based treatment approaches for reducing IBS symptoms: exclusion diets such as those low in fermentable oligo-, di-, monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAPs) and exposure-based cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT). Exclusion diets recommend patients avoid foods thought to be symptom-inducing, whereas exposure-based CBT encourages patients to expose themselves to foods.

AIMS

To address the paradox of conceptually opposite exclusion diets and exposure-based CBT for IBS.

METHODS

In this conceptual review, we describe the rationale, practical implementation, evidence base and strengths and weaknesses of each treatment. We conducted up-to-date literature search concerning the low FODMAP diet and CBT, and performed a secondary analysis of a previously conducted trial to illustrate a key point in our review.

RESULTS

The low FODMAP diet has demonstrated efficacy, but problems with adherence, nutritional compromise, and heightened gastrointestinal-specific anxiety raise caution. Exposure-based CBT has demonstrated efficacy with substantial evidence for gastrointestinal-specific anxiety as a key mechanism of action. Mediation analysis also showed that increased FODMAP intake mediated decreased symptom severity in exposure-based CBT. However, there is minimal evidence supporting which treatment "works best for whom" and how these approaches could be best integrated.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though exclusion diets and exposure-based CBT are conceptually opposite, they each have proven efficacy. Clinicians should familiarise themselves with both treatments. Further research is needed on predictors, mechanisms and moderators of treatment outcomes.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with chronic pain in Germany: associations with expectations and control beliefs

Background

While the COVID‐19 pandemic is affecting people's well‐being worldwide, it may place a particularly high burden on people with chronic pain, as pain is known to be influenced by societal and psychological conditions.

Methods

In this observational study, we conducted telephone interviews with 196 patients with chronic pain to assess the impact of the pandemic on various aspects of their pain and everyday life. The initial interviews were conducted between April and May 2020 and were followed up by a second interview between August and December 2020.

Results

A substantial percentage of patients (39% at the first and 32% at the second interview) reported an increase in pain intensity due to the pandemic. Exploratory analyses revealed that patients who already suffered from greater pain and who experienced greater restrictions due to the pandemic were more likely to express pain worsening. Psychological factors such as negative expectations about the development of their pain and pain treatment and a high external locus of control were also associated with increases in pain.

Conclusions

These findings illustrate the complexity of chronic pain, suggesting that not only the impact of the pandemic on various areas of life but also the severity of the pain‐symptoms themselves and psychological factors influence the course of patients' symptoms during the pandemic.

Significance

This study underlines the importance of psychosocial factors in chronic pain and demonstrates that the societal and psychological impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic can affect patients' pain and their ability to cope with it. The extent to which patients experience pain aggravation seems to interact with other psychological factors such as pain expectations and control beliefs.

The importance of considering psychosocial aspects in migraine patients

Letter about the importance of considering psychosocial aspects in migraine patients