Nocebo Effect in Menière's Disease: A Meta-analysis of Placebo-controlled Randomized Controlled Trials

Impairment of Hypnosis by Nocebo Response and Related Neurovegetative Changes: A Case Report in Oral Surgery

This article presents the third molar removal in a highly hypnotizable patient, who had been successfully submitted to oral surgery with hypnosis as stand-alone anesthesia in previous sessions. Unexpectedly, hypnosis initially failed, as a result of a nocebo response due to a previous dentist's bad communication; two complaints made by the patient were associated with increased sympathetic activity (as defined by increased heart rate and electrodermal activity and decreased heart rate variability). After deepening of hypnosis, the patient achieved a full hypnotic analgesia allowing for a successful conclusion of the intervention, an event associated with decreased heart rate, electrodermal activity, and increased heart rate variability. Hence, the initial failure was paralleled by a decreased parasympathetic activity and increased sympathetic activity, while hypnotic analgesia was associated with the opposite pattern. The patient's postoperative report indicated that the initial failure of hypnosis depended on a strong nocebo effect because of a previous dentist distrusting hypnosis and persuading her that it was not enough to face a third molar removal.

Intratympanic gentamicin for Ménière's disease

BACKGROUND

Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. Aminoglycosides are sometimes administered directly into the middle ear to treat this condition. The aim of this treatment is to partially or completely destroy the balance function of the affected ear. The efficacy of this intervention in preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of intratympanic aminoglycosides versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 September 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with a diagnosis of Ménière's disease comparing intratympanic aminoglycosides with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with a total of 137 participants. All studies compared the use of gentamicin to either placebo or no treatment. Due to the very small numbers of participants in these trials, and concerns over the conduct and reporting of some studies, we considered all the evidence in this review to be very low-certainty.  Improvement in vertigo This outcome was assessed by only two studies, and they used different time periods for reporting. Improvement in vertigo was reported by more participants who received gentamicin at both 6 to ≤ 12 months (16/16 participants who received gentamicin, compared to 0/16 participants with no intervention; risk ratio (RR) 33.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.15 to 507; 1 study; 32 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and at > 12 months follow-up (12/12 participants receiving gentamicin, compared to 6/10 participants receiving placebo; RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.69; 1 study; 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, we were unable to conduct any meta-analysis for this outcome, the certainty of the evidence was very low and we cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from the results.  Change in vertigo Again, two studies assessed this outcome, but used different methods of measuring vertigo and assessed the outcome at different time points. We were therefore unable to carry out any meta-analysis or draw any meaningful conclusions from the results. Global scores of vertigo were lower for those who received gentamicin at both 6 to ≤ 12 months (mean difference (MD) -1 point, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.32; 1 study; 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence; four-point scale; minimally clinically important difference presumed to be one point) and at > 12 months (MD -1.8 points, 95% CI -2.49 to -1.11; 1 study; 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Vertigo frequency was also lower at > 12 months for those who received gentamicin (0 attacks per year in participants receiving gentamicin compared to 11 attacks per year for those receiving placebo; 1 study; 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Serious adverse events None of the included studies provided information on the total number of participants who experienced a serious adverse event. It is unclear whether this is because no adverse events occurred, or because they were not assessed or reported.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the use of intratympanic gentamicin in the treatment of Ménière's disease is very uncertain. This is primarily due to the fact that there are few published RCTs in this area, and all the studies we identified enrolled a very small number of participants. As the studies assessed different outcomes, using different methods, and reported at different time points, we were not able to pool the results to obtain more reliable estimates of the efficacy of this treatment. More people may report an improvement in vertigo following gentamicin treatment, and scores of vertigo symptoms may also improve. However, the limitations of the evidence mean that we cannot be sure of these effects. Although there is the potential for intratympanic gentamicin to cause harm (for example, hearing loss) we did not find any information about the risks of treatment in this review.  Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analysis of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.

Intratympanic corticosteroids for Ménière's disease

BACKGROUND

Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. Corticosteroids are sometimes administered directly into the middle ear to treat this condition (through the tympanic membrane). The underlying cause of Ménière's disease is unknown, as is the way in which this treatment may work. The efficacy of this intervention in preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of intratympanic corticosteroids versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 September 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with a diagnosis of Ménière's disease comparing intratympanic corticosteroids with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects (including tympanic membrane perforation). We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies with a total of 952 participants. All studies used the corticosteroid dexamethasone, with doses ranging from approximately 2 mg to 12 mg.  Improvement in vertigo Intratympanic corticosteroids may make little or no difference to the number of people who report an improvement in their vertigo at 6 to ≤ 12 months follow-up (intratympanic corticosteroids 96.8%, placebo 96.6%, risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.10; 2 studies; 60 participants; low-certainty evidence) or at more than 12 months follow-up (intratympanic corticosteroids 100%, placebo 96.3%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.23; 2 studies; 58 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, we note the large improvement in the placebo group for these trials, which causes challenges in interpreting these results.  Change in vertigo Assessed with a global score One study (44 participants) assessed the change in vertigo at 3 to < 6 months using a global score, which considered the frequency, duration and severity of vertigo. This is a single, small study and the certainty of the evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Assessed by frequency of vertigo Three studies (304 participants) assessed the change in frequency of vertigo episodes at 3 to < 6 months. Intratympanic corticosteroids may slightly reduce the frequency of vertigo episodes. The proportion of days affected by vertigo was 0.05 lower (absolute difference -5%) in those receiving intratympanic corticosteroids (95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; 3 studies; 472 participants; low-certainty evidence). This is equivalent to a difference of approximately 1.5 days fewer per month affected by vertigo in the corticosteroid group (with the control group having vertigo on approximately 2.5 to 3.5 days per month at the end of follow-up, and those receiving corticosteroids having vertigo on approximately 1 to 2 days per month). However, this result should be interpreted with caution - we are aware of unpublished data at this time point in which corticosteroids failed to show a benefit over placebo. One study also assessed the change in frequency of vertigo at 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months follow-up. However, this is a single, small study and the certainty of the evidence was very low. Therefore, we are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Serious adverse events Four studies reported this outcome. There may be little or no effect on the occurrence of serious adverse events with intratympanic corticosteroids, but the evidence is very uncertain (intratympanic corticosteroids 3.0%, placebo 4.4%; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.85; 4 studies; 500 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for intratympanic corticosteroids in the treatment of Ménière's disease is uncertain. There are relatively few published RCTs, which all consider the same type of corticosteroid (dexamethasone). We also have concerns about publication bias in this area, with the identification of two large RCTs that remain unpublished. The evidence comparing intratympanic corticosteroids to placebo or no treatment is therefore all low- or very low-certainty. This means that we have very low confidence that the effects reported are accurate estimates of the true effect of these interventions. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area, and enable meta-analysis of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits. Finally, we would also highlight the responsibility that trialists have to ensure results are available, regardless of the outcome of their study.

Systemic pharmacological interventions for Ménière's disease

BACKGROUND

Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. A number of pharmacological interventions have been used in the management of this condition, including betahistine, diuretics, antiviral medications and corticosteroids. The underlying cause of Ménière's disease is unknown, as is the way in which these treatments may work. The efficacy of these different interventions at preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic pharmacological interventions versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 September 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with definite or probable Ménière's disease comparing betahistine, diuretics, antihistamines, antivirals or systemic corticosteroids with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies with a total of 848 participants. The studies evaluated the following interventions: betahistine, diuretics, antivirals and corticosteroids. We did not identify any evidence on antihistamines.  Betahistine Seven RCTs (548 participants) addressed this comparison. However, we were unable to conduct any meta-analyses for our primary outcomes as not all outcomes were considered by every study, and studies that did report the same outcome used different time points for follow-up, or assessed the outcome using different methods. Therefore, we were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Some data were available for each of our primary outcomes, but the evidence was low- or very low-certainty throughout. One study reported on the outcome 'improvement in vertigo' at 6 to ≤ 12 months, and another study reported this outcome at > 12 months. Four studies reported on the change in vertigo, but again all used different methods of assessment (vertigo frequency, or a global score of vertigo severity) or different time points. A single study reported on serious adverse events.  Diuretics Two RCTs addressed this comparison. One considered the use of isosorbide (220 participants), and the other used a combination of amiloride hydrochloride and hydrochlorothiazide (80 participants). Again, we were unable to conduct any meta-analyses for our primary outcomes, as only one study reported on the outcome 'improvement in vertigo' (at 6 to ≤ 12 months), one study reported on change in vertigo (at 3 to < 6 months) and neither study assessed serious adverse events. Therefore, we were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. The evidence was all very low-certainty.  Other pharmacological interventions We also identified one study that assessed antivirals (24 participants), and one study that assessed corticosteroids (16 participants). The evidence for these interventions was all very low-certainty. Again, serious adverse events were not considered by either study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for systemic pharmacological interventions for Ménière's disease is very uncertain. There are few RCTs that compare these interventions to placebo or no treatment, and the evidence that is currently available from these studies is of low or very low certainty. This means that we have very low confidence that the effects reported are accurate estimates of the true effect of these interventions. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analyses of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.

Pain, the uknown: epistemological issues and related clinical implications

Despite the huge development of pain management in the past decades, pain remains elusive and many patients still remain in the middle of the ford struggling between low drug efficacy and their overuse. A reason for pain elusiveness is its nature of subjective phenomenon, escaping the meshes of the objectivist, mechanist-reductionist net prevailing in medicine. Actually, pain is not only a symptom but an essential aspect of life, consciousness and contact with the world and its noetic and autonoetic components play a key role in the development of the concepts of pleasure-unpleasure and good-evil. The intensity and tolerability of pain and suffering also depends on what the pain means to the patient. The outstanding effects of placebo and nocebo, behavioral and non-pharmacological techniques warrant the need for a shift from the traditional positivist idea of patient as passive carrier of disease to the patient as active player of recovery and move toward a patient's centered approach exploiting individual resources for recovery. Among the mentioned techniques, hypnosis has proved to increase pain threshold up to the level of surgical analgesia, improve acute and chronic pain as well as coping and resilience, helping to decrease both drug overuse and the costs of pharmacological therapy. The wealth of available data suggest the need for a holistic approach, aiming to take care of the individual as an inseparable mind-body unit in its interplay with the environment, where patient's inner world, his/her experience and cognition are taken into due account as powerful resources for recovery through a phenomenological-existential approach.

Are viral-infections associated with Ménière's Disease? A systematic review and meta-analysis of molecular-markers of viral-infection in case-controlled observational studies of MD

Despite considerable research, it remains controversial as to whether viral-infections are associated with Meniere’s Disease (MD), a clinically heterogeneous set of chronic inner-ear disorders strongly associated with endolymphatic hydrops. Here, we investigated whether viral-infections are associated with MD through a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational clinical studies using molecular-diagnostics. Eligible for inclusion were case-controlled studies which ascertained molecular-determinants of past or present viral-infection through either viral nucleic acids or host serological marker in MD cases and non-MD controls. Across online databases and grey literature, we identified 210 potentially relevant articles in the English language, from which a total of 14 articles fully satisfied our eligibility criteria such that meta-groups of 611 MD-cases and 373 controls resulted. The aggregate quality of the modest-sized (14 studies) body of evidence was limited and varied considerably with regards to participant selection, matching, and ascertainment(s) and determinant(s) of viral-infection. Most data identified concerned the human cytomegalovirus (CMV), and meta-analysis of eligible studies revealed that evidence of CMV-infection was associated approximately three-fold with MD compared to controls, however the timing of the infections was indeterminate as the pooled analyses combined antiviral serological markers with viral nucleic acid markers. No association was found for any of HSV-1, -2, VZV, or EBV. Associative analyses of any viral species not aforementioned were precluded by limited data, and thus potential associations between other viral species and MD, especially other than Herpesviridae, are yet to be characterised. Overall, we have found a small association between CMV-infection and MD, however it is to be determined for what sub-groups of MD this finding may be relevant, and ideally the reported association remains would be reproduced by a greater volume of higher quality evidence.

Nocebo effect in myasthenia gravis: systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled clinical trials

Nocebo refers to the adverse events (AEs) experienced when taking a placebo drug and is believed to be a centrally mediated process. We sought to examine the AEs following placebo administration in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) for Myasthenia Gravis (MG) patients. A systematic literature search was performed on Medline and Web of Science for RCTs for MG pharmacological treatments. We assessed the number of placebo-treated patients reporting at least one AE and the number of dropouts because of AEs. Data were extracted from six RCTs fulfilling the search criteria. Four out of five placebo-treated participants (80.1%) reported at least one AE and one in 40 (2.4%) discontinued placebo treatment because of AE. All patients participating in the MG trials reported similar AEs independent of the study arm to which they belonged (placebo or active treatment). This meta-analysis demonstrates a low nocebo dropout rate in MG compared to central nervous system disorders.

Nocebo in cerebellar ataxia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Nocebo, the negative counterpart of the placebo phenomenon results in the induction of adverse events (AEs) following the administration of an inert substance. Nocebo has been demonstrated to be associated with low treatment compliance in clinical trials, thus affecting treatment outcomes. This study sought to determine the prevalence of nocebo in cerebellar ataxia.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted on Pubmed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for cerebellar ataxia treatments. The number of drug-related AEs and the number of withdrawals due to drug intolerance in the placebo group were statistically analysed.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 214 studies, of which 6 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Approximately 1 in 20 (4.8%) placebo-treated patients withdrew treatment due to AEs and approximately 1 in 7 (13.8%) placebo-treated participants reported at least one AE. Participants in cerebellar ataxia trials reported similar AEs across both treatment groups (active and placebo).

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate that the nocebo effect in cerebellar ataxia is amongst the lowest in neurological diseases.

Safety, Tolerability, and Nocebo Phenomena During Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

The methodology used for the application of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is such that it may induce a placebo effect. Respectively, adverse events (AEs) can occur when using a placebo, a phenomenon called nocebo. The primary aim of our meta-analysis is to establish the nocebo phenomena during TMS. Safety and tolerability of TMS were also studied.

METHODS

After a systematic Medline search for TMS randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we assessed the number of patients reporting at least one AE and the number of discontinuations because of AE in active and sham TMS groups.

RESULTS

Data were extracted from 93 RCTs. The overall pooled estimate of active TMS and placebo treated patients who discontinued treatment because of AEs was 2.5% (95% CI 1.9%-3.2%) and 2.7% (95% CI 2.0%-3.5%), respectively. The pooled estimate of active TMS and placebo treated patients experiencing at least one AE was 29.3% (95% CI 19.0%-22.6%) and 13.6% (95% CI 11.6%-15.8%), respectively, suggesting that the odds of experiencing an AE is 2.60 times higher (95% CI 1.75-3.86) in the active treatment group compared to placebo (p < 0.00001). The most common AE was headache, followed by dizziness. Secondary meta-analyses in depression and psychotic disorders showed that the odds of experiencing an AE is 3.98 times higher (95% CI 2.14-7.40) and 2.93 times higher (95% CI 1.41-6.07), respectively, in the active treatment groups compared to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

TMS is a safe and well-tolerated intervention. Nocebo phenomena do occur during TMS treatment and should be acknowledged during clinical trial design and daily clinical practice.

Intratympanic Therapies in Ménière Disease: Evaluation of Outcomes and Early Vertigo Control

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes of intratympanic (IT) dexamethasone and gentamicin in Ménière Disease (MD).

METHODS

Charts of adult patients with unilateral definite MD receiving IT gentamicin or dexamethasone from 2005 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients had at least 6 months follow-up. Failure in each group was defined as the need for more aggressive therapy. Prior to 2011, all patient received IT gentamicin, administered as primary therapy after failure of conservative treatment measures. Gentamicin was administered every 2 weeks, up to three injections, until vertigo control was achieved. Beginning in 2011, the treatment protocol shifted to IT dexamethasone as initial treatment, with gentamicin used for dexamethasone failures. Dexamethasone was administered weekly for up to three injections. Treatments could be repeated if symptoms recurred.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients received IT dexamethasone, and 70 patients received IT gentamicin. Dexamethasone patients received a mean of 3.3 injections compared to 2.7 in the gentamicin group (P = 0.011). There were 12 (38%) failures in the dexamethasone group and only seven (10%) gentamicin failures (P = 0.025). No patients failed both treatments. The mean time to failure in the dexamethasone group was 5 months, whereas in the gentamicin group it was 27 months. Change in pure tone audiometry from baseline was not different between treatment groups (P = 0.30).

CONCLUSION

Subjects receiving IT gentamicin required fewer injections and had a significantly longer time to failure than IT dexamethasone. Audiometric outcomes were similar between the groups. The use of IT gentamicin as initial therapy for early and long-term control of MD is safe and effective.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 129:216-221, 2019.