Risk factors associated with nocebo effects: A review of reviews

Objective

This meta-review aims to identify and categorize the risk factors that are associated with nocebo effects. The nocebo effect can exert a negative impact on treatment outcomes and have detrimental outcomes on health. Learning more about its potential predictors and risk factors is a crucial step to mitigating it.

Methods

Literature review studies about the risk factors for nocebo effects were searched through five databases (PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and Embase) and through grey literature. Methodological validity and risk of bias were assessed. We conducted a thematic analysis of the results of the forty-three included reviews.

Results

We identified nine categories of risk factors: prior expectations and learning; socio-demographic characteristics; personality and individual differences; neurodegenerative conditions; inflammatory conditions; communication of information and patient-physician relationship; drug characteristics; setting; and self-awareness. We also highlighted the main biochemical and neurophysiological mechanisms underlying nocebo effects.

Conclusions

Nocebo effects arise from expectations of adverse symptoms, particularly when triggered by previous negative experiences. A trusting relationship with the treating physician and clear, tailored treatment instructions can act as protective factors against a nocebo effect. Clinical implications are discussed.

Nocebo response in dentistry: A systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse events in analgesic trials of third molar removal

BACKGROUND

The nocebo response refers to the phenomenon where non-specific factors, including negative verbal suggestion and treatment expectations, cause adverse events (AE) following a placebo treatment. Non-specific factors are also likely to influence AE occurrence following administration of active pharmacological treatments.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the nocebo response in dentistry by assessing the AEs prevalence in placebo- and active arms of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing analgesic treatment following third molar (M3) surgery.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies had to report the number of patients experiencing at least one drug-related AE (patients with AE ≥ 1) separately for the active and placebo arms. The proportion of patients with AE ≥ 1 and drug-related dropouts were pooled, and risk differences (RDs) between patients in the placebo- and active arm were calculated.

RESULTS

In 50 independent RCTs of 47 identified articles, the pooled rates of patients with AE ≥ 1 were 22.8% in the placebo arm and 20.6% in the active arm. The pooled rates of drug-related dropout were 0.24% in the placebo arm and 0.08% in the active arm. There were no significant RDs in patients with AE ≥ 1 and drug-related dropouts.

CONCLUSION

These results show that patients in the placebo arm reported AEs to the same extent as patients receiving active treatment, suggesting that most AEs in analgesic medication following M3 surgery may be attributed to the nocebo phenomenon.

Functional neurological disorder: Extending the diagnosis to other disorders, and proposing an alternate disease term—Attentionally-modifiable disorder

BACKGROUND: The term “functional neurological disorder,” or “FND,” applies to disorders whose occurrence of neurological symptoms fluctuate with the patient’s attention to them. However, many other disorders that are not called “FND” nonetheless can also follow this pattern. Consequently, guidelines are unclear for diagnosing “FND.” OBJECTIVE: To review the neurological conditions that follow this pattern, but which have not so far been termed “FND,” to understand their overlap with conditions that have been termed “FND,” and to discuss the rationale for why FND has not been diagnosed for them. METHOD: A systematic review of the PubMed literature registry using the terms “fluctuation,” “inconsistency,” or “attention” did not yield much in the way of these candidate disorders. Consequently, this review instead relied on the author’s personal library of peer-reviewed studies of disorders that have resembled FND but which were not termed this way, due to his longstanding interest in this problem. Consequently, this approach was not systematic and was subjective regarding disease inclusion. RESULTS: This review identified numerous, diverse conditions that generally involve fluctuating neurological symptoms that can vary with the person’s attention to them, but which have not been called “FND.” The literature was unclear for reasons for not referring to “FND” in these instances. CONCLUSION: Most likely because of historical biases, the use of the term “FND” has been unnecessarily restricted. Because at its core FND is an attentionally-influenced disorder that can respond well to behavioral treatments, the field of neurological rehabilitation could benefit by extending the range of conditions that could be considered as “FND” and referred for similar behavioral treatments. Because the term “FND” has been viewed unfavorably by some patients and clinical practitioners and whose treatment is not implied, the alternative term attentionally-modifiable disorder is proposed.

Beliefs About Medicines Predict Side-Effects of Placebo Modafinil

BACKGROUND

Patients receiving placebo in clinical trials often report side-effects (nocebo effects), but contributing factors are still poorly understood.

PURPOSE

Using a sham trial of the cognition-enhancing "smart pill" Modafinil we tested whether medication beliefs and other psychological factors predicted detection and attribution of symptoms as side-effects to placebo.

METHODS

Healthy students (n = 201) completed measures assessing beliefs about medication, perceived sensitivity to medicines, negative affectivity, somatization, and body awareness; 66 were then randomized to receive Deceptive Placebo (told Modafinil-given placebo, 67 to Open Placebo (told placebo-given placebo, and 68 to No Placebo. Memory and attention tasks assessed cognitive enhancement. Nocebo effects were assessed by symptom checklist.

RESULTS

More symptoms were reported in the Deceptive Placebo condition (M = 2.65; SD = 2.27) than Open Placebo (M = 1.92; SD = 2.24; Mann-Whitney U = 1,654, z = 2.30, p = .022) or No Placebo (M = 1.68; SD = 1.75, Mann-Whitney U = 1,640, z = 2.74, p = .006). Participants were more likely to attribute symptoms to Modafinil side-effects if they believed pharmaceuticals to be generally harmful (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.70, p = .019), had higher perceived sensitivity to medicines (IRR = 1.68, p = .011), stronger concerns about Modafinil (IRR = 2.10, p < .001), and higher negative affectivity (IRR = 2.37, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Beliefs about medication are potentially modifiable predictors of the nocebo effect. These findings provide insight into side-effect reports to placebo and, potentially, active treatment.

Nocebo effect in multiple system atrophy: systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled clinical trials

Background

Nocebo effect is prevalent among neurological diseases, resulting in low adherence and treatment outcome. We sought to examine the nocebo effect in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in multiple system atrophy (MSA).

Methods

We searched RCTs in MSA from Medline since September, 2021. RCTs for drug treatment conducted in adult MSA patients with more than 5 cases in each treatment arm were included. We assessed the number of dropout due to placebo intolerance. We also did a symptomatic/disease-modifying subgroup analysis based on two different treatment purposes. The STATA software was used for statistical analysis. Overall heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q and I².

Results

Data were extracted from 11 RCTs fulfilling our search criteria. Of 540 placebo-treated patients, 64.2% reported at least one adverse event (AE) and 7.5% reported dropout because of AEs. The chance of dropping out because of an AE and experiencing at least one AE did not differ between placebo and active drug treatment arms. Besides, the pooled nocebo dropout rate in the symptomatic subgroup was similar to that of the disease-modifying subgroup.

Conclusion

In MSA RCTs, nocebo dropout rate was not at a low level among neurological disorders. Nocebo effect was an important reason of dropout because of AE in placebo and active drug treatment arms. Different treatment purposes may not influence nocebo effect.

Rethinking Clinical Trials and Personalized Medicine with Placebogenomics and Placebo Dose

Pharmacogenomics, nutrigenomics, vaccinomics, and the nascent field of plant omics are examples of variability science. They are embedded within an overarching framework of personalized medicine. Across these public health specialties, the significance and biology of the placebo response have been historically neglected. A placebo is any substance such as a sugar pill administered in the guise of medication, but one that does not have pharmacological activity. Placebos do have clinical effects, however, that can be substantive in magnitude and vary markedly from person-to-person depending, for example, on the type of disease, symptoms, or clinical trial design. Research over the past several decades attests to a genuine neurobiological basis for placebo effects. All drugs have placebo components that contribute to their overall treatment effect. Placebos are used in clinical trials as control groups to ascertain the net pharmacological effect of a drug candidate. Not only less well known but also relevant to rational therapeutics and personalized medicine is the nocebo. A nocebo effect occurs when an inert substance is administered in a context that induces negative expectations, worsening patients' symptoms. With the COVID-19 pandemic, there are high public expectations for new vaccines and medicines to end the contagion, while at the same time antiscience, post-truth, and antivaccine movements are worrisomely on the rise. These social movements, changes in public health cultures, and conditioned behavioral responses can trigger both placebo and nocebo effects. Hence, in clinical trials, forecasting and explaining placebo and nocebo variability are more important than ever for robust science and personalized health care. Against this overarching context, this article provides (1) a brief history of placebo and (2) a discussion on biology, mechanisms, and variability of placebo effects, and (3) discusses three emerging new concepts: placebogenomics, nocebogenomics, and augmented placebo, that is, the notion of a "placebo dose." We conclude with a roadmap for placebogenomics, its synergies with the nascent field of social pharmacology, and the ways in which a new taxonomy of drug and placebo variability can be anticipated in the next decade.

Nocebo phenomena may be enhanced in aging: Implications for clinical practice

Nocebo effects, denoting unfavourable outcomes after a medical intervention because of negative expectations rather than a direct pharmacologic action, are an important cause of dropout from clinical trials and non-adherence to medication, and may be especially pertinent for older adults. Several characteristics of aging individuals and their medical care have a potential to augment nocebo susceptibility, such as depression and anxiety, neurodegenerative diseases and chronic pain states, adverse healthcare experiences, generic drug use, age-related stereotypes, and strained patient-physician communication. Nocebo-related research in older adults is hindered by under-representation in clinical trials, medical complexity of geriatric patients, and lack of validated tools to accurately assess susceptibility and efficacy of preventive efforts.

Nocebo effects and participant information leaflets: evaluating information provided on adverse effects in UK clinical trials

Background

Nocebo effects (‘negative placebo’ effects) experienced by clinical trial participants can arise from an underlying condition or through communication about side effects in the participant information leaflets (or elsewhere). Misattributing nocebo effects to the medicinal intervention can lead to participants experiencing harmful nocebo effects and may result in distortion of adverse effect reporting. However, little is known about how information on potential side effects is provided to trial participants. There is increasing concern that the way in which potential side effects in clinical trials are described to patients in participant information leaflets (PIL) can in itself cause harm by either increased anxiety, poor adherence or inducing the side effect itself. In this study, we aimed to explore these concerns and identify the way in which potential side effects from investigational medicinal products used in trials are presented in written information to potential participants.

Methods

Trials were identified from the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) clinical trial registry (a primary registry of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)). Eligible studies were placebo-controlled clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (IMP) in adults conducted in the UK. We assessed readability using the Flesch Reading Ease scale, Gunning-Fog Index and Flesch-Kincaid Grade. Data extracted from the PILs were divided into 8 predefined qualitative themes for analysis in NVivo11.

Results

Most of the patient information leaflets were ranked as ‘fairly difficult to read’ or ‘difficult to read’ according to the Flesch Reading Ease scale. All studies presented information about adverse events, whereas only a third presented information about intervention benefits. Where intervention or study benefits were presented, they were usually after adverse events (21/33, 64%).

Discussion

Participant information leaflets scored poorly on ease of readability and had more content relating to adverse effects than any potential beneficial effects. The way in which adverse events were presented was heterogeneous in terms of their likelihood and severity and the amount and level of detail provided. By comparison, potential benefits from the intervention and/or study were described less often, by shorter text, and only after information about harms.

Maximizing placebo response in neurological clinical practice

The placebo effect is a widely recognized phenomenon in clinical research, with a negative perception that it could hide the "true" drug effect. In clinical care its positive potential to increase known drug effects has been neglected for too long. The placebo and nocebo responses have been described in many neurologic disorders such as Parkinson's, Huntington's and Alzheimer's diseases, restless leg syndrome, tics, essential tremor, dystonia, functional movement disorders, neuropathic pain, headaches, migraine, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, multiple sclerosis and epilepsy. Knowledge regarding placebo mechanisms and their consequences on clinical outcome have greatly improved over the last two decades. This evolution has led to reconsiderations of the importance of placebo response in the clinic and has given several clues on how to improve it in daily practice. In this chapter, we first illustrate "why," e.g. the reasons (relevance to clinical practice, help in differential diagnosis/treatment of psychogenic movements, clinical impact, proven neurobiological grounds, health economic potential), and "how," e.g. the means (increase patients' knowledge, increase learning, improve patient-doctor relationship, increase Hawthorne effect, increase positive/decrease negative expectations (the Rosenthal effect), personalize placebo response), the placebo should be maximized (and nocebo avoided) in neurological clinical practice. Future studies regarding more specific neurobiological mechanisms will allow a finer tuning of placebo response in clinical practice. The use of placebo in clinical practice raises ethical issues, and a recent expert consensus regarding placebo use in the clinic is a first step to future guidelines necessary to this field.

Nocebo and lessebo effects

The power of placebos is commonly associated with the placebo effect. In contrast, detrimental effects related to the use of a placebo are little studied and less well recognized. This chapter covers the nocebo and lessebo effects defined, respectively, as expectation of harm in the form of adverse events in a placebo arm and reduction of therapeutic benefit due to the uncertainty of being allocated to placebo. The lessebo effect is a more recent concept and has been described only in depression, schizophrenia and Parkinson's disease. The nocebo response was evaluated in many neurological diseases, including epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, restless leg syndrome, among others. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials in these conditions reveal a significant variability of the magnitude of the nocebo response and that factors related to study design, study participants or neurological disease can be associated with a nocebo response, although with the opposing findings across conditions. The knowledge about neurobiological mechanisms of the nocebo effect is poor for neurological diseases, and most of the information has been generated in pain. Functional neuroimaging suggests the existence of a distinct network for the anticipation and the experience of a hyperalgesia nocebo response. Different types of neurotransmitters have been involved, including cholecystokinin, dopamine and opioids. Recognizing the potential impact of nocebo and lessebo effects, mitigating strategies are in development with application to clinical research and clinical practice, such as a contextualized informed consent process, alternative study designs and enhancement of patient-physician communication.

Placebo and nocebo phenomena in anti- CGRP monoclonal antibody trials for migraine prevention: a meta-analysis

High placebo and low nocebo phenomena mirror high positive expectations for a novel treatment, among other reasons. In a meta-analysis aimed to identify placebo and nocebo phenomena in the placebo-controlled randomized trials (RCTs) with the monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway (anti-CGRP mAbs) all the placebo-treated patients were pooled and compared with the placebo-treated patients in RCTs with topiramate and onabotulinum toxin A (OBTA). In episodic migraine (EM), the proportion of placebo-treated patients who achieved the 50% responder rate (placebo) was 32.7% (95% CI 28.6%-37.0%) in anti-CGRP mAbs vs. 24.4% (95% CI 20.5%-28.5%) in topiramate trials. The proportion of dropouts due to adverse events in placebo-treated patients (nocebo) was 1.9% (95% CI 1.4%-2.6%) in anti-CGRP mAbs vs. 9.9% (95% CI 7.7%-12.3%) in topiramate RCTs. In chronic migraine (CM), the placebo 50% responder rate was 23.6% (95% CI 11.2%-38.8%) in anti-CGRP mAbs RCTs vs. 36.4% (95% CI 32.6%-39.3%) in RCTs with OBTA. The nocebo dropout in anti-CGRP mAbs and OBTA RCTs was 1.4% (95% CI 0.8%-2.1%) and 0.9 (95% CI 0.3%-1.7%), respectively. The stronger placebo and weaker nocebo phenomena in RCTs with anti-CGRP mAbs vs. those with topiramate in the prophylaxis of EM, may decisively determine anti-CGRP mAbs treatment success. No differences were detected between the anti-CGRP mAbs and OBTA in the treatment of CM.

Nocebo in Biosimilars and Generics in Neurology: A Systematic Review

Background: Nocebo refers to adverse events related to patients’ negative expectations and previous experiences, mediated by several neurobiological pathways within the brain. It is common among neurological patients and affects adherence and treatment outcomes, representing a real clinical challenge.

Methods: We conducted a systematic search based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines in MEDLINE database, using several keywords for studies that can be processed to investigate the magnitude of nocebo in generics and biosimilars used in the most common neurological diseases. The aim was to estimate its size and suggest strategies to minimize its prevalence in clinical trials and practice.

Results: Of a total of 2,606 identified articles, after criteria-based selection, 35 studies were included for analysis. Overall, there was vast heterogeneity across the studies concerning population, study design, and outcomes. Nocebo response could be estimated only in one double-blind randomized trial of generic glatiramer acetate in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis that included a placebo arm. In this trial, no significant differences observed between the three arms (innovator, bioequivalent, and placebo) in favorable and unfavorable outcomes. In the open-label phase of the trial, an increased withdrawal rate was recorded in patients switched from placebo to bioequivalent (8.4%) that may be related to nocebo. In other open-label and real-world studies evaluating biosimilars or generics for brain disorders, a similar indirect nocebo effect is assuming by several investigators. Also, knowledge gaps between health-care providers and patients exist towards generics and biosimilars.

Conclusions: Despite its presence, the true burden of the nocebo response and effect cannot be accurately estimated in existing studies with generics and biosimilars in neurological diseases. Targeted strategies for clinical trials’ design are needed in order to measure the exact nocebo’s size.

How to prevent, minimize, or extinguish nocebo effects in pain: a narrative review on mechanisms, predictors, and interventions

Possible factors that contribute to nocebo effects on pain are explored. Strategies that can prevent, minimize, or extinguish nocebo effects in clinical settings are suggested.

Nocebo effects, such as side effects due to negative expectations regarding the pain treatment, are a concern for health care providers and come with significant costs. This narrative review focuses on underlying mechanisms and possible factors that contribute to the susceptibility to the nocebo effect on pain and related outcomes and suggests strategies that can prevent, minimize, or extinguish nocebo effects in clinical settings. Nocebo effects are the result of psychological (eg, conditioning, verbal suggestions, and observational learning) and neurobiological (eg, cholecystokinin and dopamine regulation) mechanisms. Evidence from clinical and experimental studies lead to various recommendations and strategies to alter the nocebo effect in order to optimize pain treatments, such as providing patients with enhanced information, optimizing patient–physician communication and relationships, and offering psychoeducation on coping skills in order to manage patient expectations. The current literature from both clinical and experimental studies provides a better understanding of the nocebo effect and possible factors that modulate its strength on treatment outcomes. This allows for the development of evidence-based strategies aimed at the prevention, minimization, and treatment of the nocebo effect in pain conditions and possible other somatic disorders.

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.

Placebo analgesia effects across central nervous system diseases: what do we know and where do we need to go?

Placebo effects are well established in healthy participants experiencing experimental or acute pain. Yet, little is known about the mechanisms of placebo analgesia effects in patients with chronic pain and even less is known in patients suffering from central nervous system (CNS) diseases where pain is prevalent, difficult to manage, and often undertreated. This article briefly reviews the current knowledge of placebo analgesia effects in healthy participants with the aim of discussing how the mechanisms in placebo analgesia differ between healthy participants and patients. The focus will be on placebo analgesia effects in chronic pain conditions as well as in 2 CNS diseases: Alzheimer disease and Parkinson disease. Finally, strengths and weaknesses of the current knowledge will be discussed and it will be demonstrated how insights from the placebo literature may point to new ways of improving treatments among patients experiencing pain in relation to CNS diseases.

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.

Rapid overview of systematic reviews of nocebo effects reported by patients taking placebos in clinical trials

Background

Trial participants in placebo groups report experiencing adverse events (AEs). Existing systematic reviews have not been synthesized, leaving questions about why these events occur as well as their prevalence across different conditions unanswered.

Objectives

To synthesize the evidence of prevalence of AEs in trial placebo groups across different conditions.

To compare AEs in trial placebo groups with AEs reported in untreated groups within a subset of randomized trials.

Search methods

We searched PubMed for records with the word “nocebo” in the title and “systematic” in any field. We also contacted experts and hand-searched references of included studies.

Study eligibility

We included any systematic review of randomized trials where nocebo effects were reported. We excluded systematic reviews of non-randomized studies.

Participants and interventions

We included studies in any disease area.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods

We appraised the quality of the studies using a shortened version of the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool (AMSTAR) tool. We reported medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) of AEs. Among the trials within the review that included untreated groups, we compared the prevalence of AEs in untreated groups with the prevalence of AEs in placebo groups.

Results

We identified 20 systematic reviews. These included 1271 randomized trials and 250,726 placebo-treated patients. The median prevalence of AEs in trial placebo groups was 49.1% (IQR 25.7–64.4%). The median rate of dropouts due to AEs was 5% (IQR 2.28–8.4%). Within the 15 of trials that reported AEs in untreated groups, we found that the AE rate in placebo groups (6.51%) was higher than that reported in untreated groups (4.25%).

Limitations

This study was limited by the quality of included reviews and the small number of trials that included untreated groups.

Conclusions and implications of key findings

AEs in trial placebo groups are common and cannot be attributed entirely to natural history. Trial methodologies that reduce AEs in placebo groups while satisfying the requirement of informed consent should be developed and implemented.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-3042-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the frequency and strength of nocebo effects in trials for Menière disease (MD).

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted in PUBMED. The search terms we used were " Menière or Menière's," "treatment," and "placebo." Limitations included article type to be Clinical Trial or Randomized Controlled Trial, text availability to be Full text, Species to be Humans and Language to be English.

STUDY SELECTION

We included placebo-controlled pharmaceutical RCTs that referred specifically to MD and recruited at least 10 adults in each arm. We excluded those studies with JADAD score ≤3.

DATA EXTRACTION

Thirty-six articles were screened identifying 12 eligible studies. Studies were included after consensus of both authors.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The meta-analysis was conducted using the RevMan programme as suggested by the Cochrane Collaboration Group. Data were analyzed using a random effects model.

CONCLUSION

Nocebo is an important confounding factor of the reported AEs in RCTs for treatment of MD and subsequently in the clinical practice. The pooled estimate of the percentage of placebo-treated patients with at least one AE was 42.3% (95% CI 8.1% to 16.3%), in comparison to 53.8% (95% CI 48.0% to 59.5%) for active drug-treated patients. Reporting of RCTs in MD is suboptimal and we recommend authors to endorse the CONSORT checklist.

Minimizing nocebo effect: Pragmatic approach

The nocebo effect, the inverse of the placebo effect, is a well-established phenomenon, yet under-appreciated. It refers to nonpharmacological, harmful, or undesirable effects occurring after active or inactive therapy. The frequency of adverse events can dramatically increase by informing patients about the possible side effects of the treatment, and by negative expectations on the part of the patient. Patients who were told that they might experience sexual side effects after treatment with β-blocker drugs reported these symptoms between three and four times more often than patients in a control group who were not informed about these symptoms. Nocebo effect has been reported in several neurological diseases such as migraine, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and neuropathic pain, and in patients with depression. The investigation of the biological and theoretical underpinning of the nocebo phenomenon is at an early stage, and more research is required. Physicians need to be aware of the influence of nocebo phenomenon and be able to recognize it and minimize its effects.

Types, frequencies, and burden of nonspecific adverse events of drugs: analysis of randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials

PURPOSE

Scarce studies analyzing adverse event (AE) data from randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials (RPCCTs) of selected illnesses suggested that a substantial proportion of collected AEs are unrelated to the drug taken. This study analyzed the nonspecific AEs occurring with active-drug exposure in RPCCTs for a large range of medical conditions.

METHODS

Randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials published in five prominent medical journals during 2006-2012 were searched. Only trials that evaluated orally or parenterally administered active drugs versus placebo in a head-to-head setting were selected. For AEs reported from ≥10 RPCCTs, Pearson's correlation coefficients (r) were calculated to determine the relationship between AE rates in placebo and active-drug recipients. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to compute proportions of nonspecific AEs, which were truncated at a maximum of 100%, in active-drug recipients.

RESULTS

We included 231 trials addressing various medical domains or healthy participants. For the 88 analyzed AE variables, AE rates for placebo and active-drug recipients were in general strongly correlated (r > 0.50) or very strongly correlated (r > 0.80). The pooled proportions of nonspecific AEs for the active-drug recipients were 96.8% (95%CI: 95.5-98.1) for any AEs, 100% (97.9-100) for serious AEs, and 77.7% (72.7-83.2) for drug-related AEs. Results were similar for individual medical domains and healthy participants. The pooled proportion of nonspecificity of 82 system organ class and individual AE types ranged from 38% to 100%.

CONCLUSION

The large proportion of nonspecific AEs reported in active-drug recipients of RPCCTs, including serious and drug-related AEs, highlights the limitations of clinical trial data to determine the tolerability of drugs. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Lessons Learned From Nocebo Effects in Clinical Trials for Pain Conditions and Neurodegenerative Disorders

It has been demonstrated that patients in the placebo arm of a clinical trial may experience adverse events (AEs), which may lead to nonadherence and dropout. However, so far, it is unknown to which extent this phenomenon is observed consistently across different diseases such as pain and neurodegenerative disorders.The current review shows for the first time that different diseases share a common risk for patients in terms of a negative outcome: a large percentage of placebo-treated patients experience AEs in pain conditions (up to 59%) and neurodegenerative disorders (up to 66%). In addition, the rate of patients who discontinue because of AEs is up to 10% and 11% in pain conditions and neurodegenerative disorders, respectively.We highlight methodological shortcomings with the aim of suggesting how the detection and reporting of AEs can be improved in future trials. The insights from the current review should be taken into consideration when designing clinical trials to tailor individualized treatments.

Neuro-Bio-Behavioral Mechanisms of Placebo and Nocebo Responses: Implications for Clinical Trials and Clinical Practice

The placebo effect has often been considered a nuisance in basic and particularly clinical research. This view has gradually changed in recent years due to deeper insight into the neuro-bio-behavioral mechanisms steering both the placebo and nocebo responses, the evil twin of placebo. For the neuroscientist, placebo and nocebo responses have evolved as indispensable tools to understand brain mechanisms that link cognitive and emotional factors with symptom perception as well as peripheral physiologic systems and end organ functioning. For the clinical investigator, better understanding of the mechanisms driving placebo and nocebo responses allow the control of these responses and thereby help to more precisely define the efficacy of a specific pharmacological intervention. Finally, in the clinical context, the systematic exploitation of these mechanisms will help to maximize placebo responses and minimize nocebo responses for the patient's benefit. In this review, we summarize and critically examine the neuro-bio-behavioral mechanisms underlying placebo and nocebo responses that are currently known in terms of different diseases and physiologic systems. We subsequently elaborate on the consequences of this knowledge for pharmacological treatments of patients and the implications for pharmacological research, the training of healthcare professionals, and for the health care system and future research strategies on placebo and nocebo responses.

Beliefs about medication predict the misattribution of a common symptom as a medication side effect--Evidence from an analogue online study

OBJECTIVE

Some perceived medication side effects may be 'normal' symptoms that patients misattribute to the medication. Using an analogue approach, we tested if medication beliefs predict whether participants misattribute a headache as a side effect and subsequently intend to stop medication.

METHODS

We recruited 690 participants, 223 reporting a past asthma diagnosis. They received information about asthma and Molair, a fictitious asthma treatment modeled on a licensed treatment (montelukast). We varied the description of efficacy and side effects (which did not include headache). Pre-exposure to this information, participants completed the Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire (BMQ)-General and the Perceived Sensitivity to Medicines Scale (PSM), post-exposure they completed the BMQ-Specific. Participants were asked to imagine they experienced a headache while taking Molair. Finally, they rated whether the headache was a side effect (misattribution) and if they would stop taking Molair (behavioral intention).

RESULTS

Nearly a quarter (170) of participants misattributed the headache to Molair and 69 (10%) subsequently intended to stop Molair. Both outcomes were predicted by general and specific medication beliefs. Odds of misattribution (m) and behavioral intention (i) increased with higher General Harm (ORm=1.90, ORi=2.72), General Overuse (ORm=1.74, ORi=1.56) and Molair Concern beliefs (ORm=1.52, ORi=1.78, all p<.01), but decreased with General Benefit (ORm=0.72, ORi=0.53) and Molair Necessity beliefs (ORm=0.72, ORi=0.70, all p<.05).

CONCLUSION

Symptom misattribution and subsequent intentions to stop Molair were predicted by pre-exposure beliefs about medicines in general and post-exposure beliefs about Molair. Patients with negative medication beliefs may be prone to misattribute symptoms and subsequently stop medication.

Nocebo effects and psychotropic drug action

The role of psychosocial context around patient and therapy can be studied through randomized clinical trials. The analysis of the results of clinical trials, and considering the adverse events (AEs) in the placebo groups, provides an important perspective of study for this phenomenon. In double-blind, randomized clinical trials, the side effects reported in placebo-treated groups are not associated with pharmacological treatment, but other factors should be taken into account to explain these symptoms. This phenomenon may be conceptualized as 'nocebo effects' relating to negative expectations for treatment outcome, even though a role of prior learning in the form of conditioning with active treatments cannot be excluded. This approach makes it possible to observe how associating the placebo groups with a particular drug can cause specific AEs that are consistent with those observed in the active group. This phenomenon was described in a systematic review that examined placebo AEs in tricyclic antidepressant randomized clinical trials. The authors depicted nocebo effects in antidepressant placebos similar to the AE profiles of the real drugs, which they were matched with. These key findings contrast with the belief that nocebo effects were simply nonspecific. Moreover, they emphasize the need to develop standardized procedures for collecting information about AEs in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials determining drug efficacy.

Nonspecific adverse events in knee osteoarthritis clinical trials: a systematic review

Background

Adverse events (AEs) derived from nonspecific activity of treatments can impair the validity of trials, and even make it difficult to identify specific AEs associated with treatments. To better understand these nonspecific AEs, we investigated the AEs in placebo groups by using knee osteoarthritis clinical trials.

Methods

Randomized, placebo-controlled, knee osteoarthritis trials were identified by searching electronic databases. We determined the rate of patients with AEs and the rate of dropouts caused by AEs in the active and placebo groups. Furthermore, we calculated the rate of patients for individual AEs in the placebo groups. Finally, we performed secondary analyses to identify the factors associated with these rates.

Results

Overall, 272 papers reporting 281 trials were included in the analysis. The rates of patients with AEs were 31.8% in the active groups and 27.4% in the placebo groups. The rate of the placebo groups accounted for 86.2% of the rate of the active groups. The rates of dropouts caused by AEs were 5.2% in the active groups and 4.8% in the placebo groups. The rate of the placebo groups accounted for 92.3% of the rate of the active groups. AEs in the placebo groups included a number of clinical conditions, with elevated alanine aminotransferase (0.59%; 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.77) being the most common objective outcome and headache (4.48%; 95% CI: 4.20 to 4.79) being the most frequent subjective outcome. The rate of patients with AEs and the rate of dropouts caused by AEs were associated with the treatment type, delivery route, and study design.

Conclusions

The nonspecific AEs substantially accounted for the development of AEs in the active groups and included conditions involving the entire body.

Characterization of the adverse events profile of placebo-treated patients in randomized controlled trials on drug-resistant focal epilepsies

In epilepsy trials a substantial proportion of patients receiving placebo has some improvement or experience adverse events (AEs) which match those related to active drug. The characterization of factors influencing these responses is crucial for a better comprehension of study results and to improve design of new trials. Seventy-one placebo-controlled, double-blind trials in drug-resistant focal epilepsies has been selected. The effect of multiple factors on some outcome measures were explored using a meta-regression model. For subjective and objective AEs, risk difference (RD) was calculated and entered in an inverse variance-weighted linear meta-regression model as independent variable to evaluate the relationship with data reported in placebo-treated patients. The number of study arms influence the percentage of patients withdrawing because of AEs and the highest dose of the experimental drug used in each RCT correlates with withdrawal because of AEs and with subjective AEs. Higher titration speed is associated with lower percentages of responders and higher reporting of both objective and subjective AEs. The correlation between proportions of placebo-treated patients with subjective and objective neurological AEs and relative RD, was significant (P = 0.002 r = 0.364 and P < 0.001 r = 0.650, respectively). Efficacy and tolerability outcomes of the placebo groups are intrinsically tied to the trial methodology and to the outcomes observed in patients treated with the active drug. The correlation for objective and subjective AEs between RD and the placebo-treated patients suggest that investigators are influenced by factors which operate within each specific trial.

Clinically meaningful nocebo effect occurs in acupuncture treatment: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the nocebo effect using randomized acupuncture trials that include sham and no-treatment groups.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Electronic databases were searched to retrieve eligible trials from their inception until June 2013. Risk differences were then calculated using the acupuncture and sham groups to determine the treatment effect and the sham and no-treatment groups to determine the nocebo effect.

RESULTS

In total, 58 eligible trials were analyzed. On the basis of the rate of patients with any adverse event in 31 trials reporting available data, the treatment effect was 0.012 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.003, 0.021), with a number needed to harm (NNH) of 83 (95% CI: 48, 333). The nocebo effect was 0.049 (95% CI: 0.012, 0.086), with an NNH of 20 (95% CI: 12, 83). By contrast, the rate of dropouts due to adverse events in 39 trials reporting available data showed no differences for both effects. In addition, nearly 70% of the trials reported zero dropouts in the sham and no-treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that (1) the nocebo effect of acupuncture is clinically meaningful and (2) the rate of patients with any adverse event may be a more appropriate indicator of the nocebo effect.

Nocebo in clinical trials for depression: a meta-analysis

Nocebo refers to adverse events (AEs) related to negative expectations that medical treatment will likely harm instead of heal and can be assessed in placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We sought to examine the AEs following placebo administration in RCTs for depression (D). After a systematic Medline search for RCTs in depression published in the last decade we assessed percentages of placebo-treated patients reporting at least one AE or discontinuing due to placebo intolerance and searched for factors influencing nocebo's extent. Data were extracted from 21 RCTs fulfilling search criteria. Of 3255 placebo-treated patients, 44.7% (95% CI: 22.3-68.3%) reported at least one AE, and 4.5% (95% CI: 3.4-5.8%) discontinued placebo treatment due to intolerance. AE rates in placebo and active drug treated patients were correlated quantitatively (r=0.915, p<0.001) and qualitatively, but not dropout rates (r=0.047). We conclude that almost one out of 20 placebo treated patients discontinued treatment due to AEs, indicating a significant nocebo in trials for depression treatment adversely affecting adherence and efficacy of current treatments in clinical practice, with additional implications for trial designing.

Expectation modulates the effect of deep brain stimulation on motor and cognitive function in tremor-dominant Parkinson's disease

Expectation contributes to placebo and nocebo responses in Parkinson's disease (PD). While there is evidence for expectation-induced modulations of bradykinesia, little is known about the impact of expectation on resting tremor. Subthalamic nucleus (STN) deep brain stimulation (DBS) improves cardinal PD motor symptoms including tremor whereas impairment of verbal fluency (VF) has been observed as a potential side-effect. Here we investigated how expectation modulates the effect of STN-DBS on resting tremor and its interaction with VF. In a within-subject-design, expectation of 24 tremor-dominant PD patients regarding the impact of STN-DBS on motor symptoms was manipulated by verbal suggestions (positive [placebo], negative [nocebo], neutral [control]). Patients participated with (MedON) and without (MedOFF) antiparkinsonian medication. Resting tremor was recorded by accelerometry and bradykinesia of finger tapping and diadochokinesia were assessed by a 3D ultrasound motion detection system. VF was quantified by lexical and semantic tests. In a subgroup of patients, the effect of STN-DBS on tremor was modulated by expectation, i.e. tremor decreased (placebo response) or increased (nocebo response) by at least 10% as compared to the control condition while no significant effect was observed for the overall group. Interestingly, nocebo responders in MedON were additionally characterized by significant impairment in semantic verbal fluency. In contrast, bradykinesia was not affected by expectation. These results indicate that the therapeutic effect of STN-DBS on tremor can be modulated by expectation in a subgroup of patients and suggests that tremor is also among the parkinsonian symptoms responsive to placebo and nocebo interventions. While positive expectations enhanced the effect of STN-DBS by further decreasing the magnitude of tremor, negative expectations counteracted the therapeutic effect and at the same time exacerbated a side-effect often associated with STN-DBS. The present findings underscore the potency of patients' expectation and its relevance for therapeutic outcomes.