Adverse events appear to unblind clinical trials in irritable bowel syndrome

Low-dose titrated amitriptyline as second-line treatment for adults with irritable bowel syndrome in primary care: the ATLANTIS RCT

Background

Irritable bowel syndrome, characterised by abdominal pain and a change in stool form or frequency, is most often managed in primary care. When first-line therapies are ineffective, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines suggest considering low-dose tricyclic antidepressants as second-line treatment, but their effectiveness in primary care is unknown and they are infrequently prescribed by general practitioners.

Objective

To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of low-dose titrated amitriptyline as a second-line treatment for irritable bowel syndrome in primary care.

Design

A pragmatic, randomised, multicentre, two-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. A nested, qualitative study explored participant and general practitioner experiences of treatments and trial participation, and implications for wider use of amitriptyline for irritable bowel syndrome in primary care. Participants, clinicians, investigators and analysts were masked to allocation.

Setting

Fifty-five general practices in three regions in England (Wessex, West of England, West Yorkshire).

Participants

Patients aged ≥ 18 years meeting Rome IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome with ongoing symptoms after trying first-line treatments and no contraindications to TCAs.

Intervention

Amitriptyline 10 mg once-daily, self-titrated by participants to a maximum of 30 mg once-daily or matched placebo for 6 months. Participants randomised 1 : 1 with most having the option to continue blinded treatment for a further 6 months.

Main outcome measures

The primary participant-reported outcome was the effect of amitriptyline on global irritable bowel syndrome symptoms at 6 months, measured using the irritable bowel syndrome Severity Scoring System, with a 35-point between-group difference defined as the minimum clinically important difference. The key secondary outcome was the proportion of participants reporting subjective global assessment of relief at 6 months, defined as somewhat, considerable, or complete relief of symptoms. Other secondary outcomes included: effect on global symptoms, via the irritable bowel syndrome Severity Scoring System, and subjective global assessment of relief of irritable bowel syndrome symptoms at 3 and 12 months; effect on somatic symptom-reporting at 6 months; anxiety an-d depression scores; ability to work and participate in other activities at 3, 6 and 12 months; acceptability, tolerability and adherence to trial medication.

Results

Four hundred and sixty-three participants were randomised to amitriptyline (232) or placebo (231). An intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of amitriptyline for irritable bowel syndrome Severity Scoring System score between arms at 6 months [-27.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -46.9 to -7.10; p = 0.008]. For the key secondary outcome of subjective global assessment of relief of irritable bowel syndrome symptoms, amitriptyline was superior to placebo at 6 months (odds ratio 1.78, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.66; p = 0.005). Amitriptyline was superior to placebo across a range of other irritable bowel syndrome symptom measures but had no impact on somatoform symptom-reporting, anxiety, depression, or work and social adjustment scores. Adverse event trial withdrawals were more common with amitriptyline (12.9% vs. 8.7% for placebo) but most adverse events were mild. The qualitative study thematically analysed 77 semistructured interviews with 42 participants and 16 GPs. Most participants found the self-titration process acceptable and empowering.

Conclusions

General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with irritable bowel syndrome whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies. Guidance and resources should support GP-patient communication to distinguish amitriptyline for irritable bowel syndrome from use as an antidepressant and to support patients managing their own dose titration.

Study registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN48075063.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/162/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment Vol. 28, No. 66. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The Biology of Placebo and Nocebo Effects on Experimental and Chronic Pain: State of the Art

(1) Background: In recent years, placebo and nocebo effects have been extensively documented in different medical conditions, including pain. The scientific literature has provided strong evidence of how the psychosocial context accompanying the treatment administration can influence the therapeutic outcome positively (placebo effects) or negatively (nocebo effects). (2) Methods: This state-of-the-art paper aims to provide an updated overview of placebo and nocebo effects on pain. (3) Results: The most common study designs, the psychological mechanisms, and neurobiological/genetic determinants of these phenomena are discussed, focusing on the differences between positive and negative context effects on pain in experimental settings on healthy volunteers and in clinical settings on chronic pain patients. Finally, the last section describes the implications for clinical and research practice to maximize the medical and scientific routine and correctly interpret the results of research studies on placebo and nocebo effects. (4) Conclusions: While studies on healthy participants seem consistent and provide a clear picture of how the brain reacts to the context, there are no unique results of the occurrence and magnitude of placebo and nocebo effects in chronic pain patients, mainly due to the heterogeneity of pain. This opens up the need for future studies on the topic.

The placebo response rate in pharmacological trials in patients with irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials in irritable bowel syndrome are associated with high placebo response rates. We aimed to identify the magnitude of the placebo response and the contributing factors to this occurrence.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis with a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials between April 1, 1959, and April 30, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials that compared an active pharmacotherapeutic agent with placebo and had a dichotomous outcome of response to therapy (in terms of global improvement or improvement in abdominal pain) in adults (aged ≥18 years) with irritable bowel syndrome. Exclusion criteria were trials reporting on treatment satisfaction as a dichotomous outcome of response to therapy or clinician-reported outcomes and a treatment duration of less than 4 weeks. Our main outcome was identification of the magnitude of the pooled placebo response rate for the following endpoints: global improvement, abdominal pain, and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) endpoints. We extracted information from published reports and pooled proportions through meta-analysis with random effects. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020170908.

FINDINGS

Of the 6863 publications identified, 70 articles describing 73 randomised controlled trials were included in our analysis. The pooled placebo response rate was 27·3% (95% CI 24·3-30·9) using the global improvement endpoint, 34·4% (31·2-37·8) using the abdominal pain endpoint, and 17·9% (15·2-21·0) using the composite FDA endpoint responder definition, all with substantial heterogeneity between the trials. Studies published before 2006, and those done in Europe, with a parallel design, a run-in period of 2 weeks or less, a dose schedule of three times a day or more, or a smaller sample size of the control group were significantly associated with an increased pooled placebo response rate.

INTERPRETATION

More than a quarter of patients with irritable bowel syndrome had a placebo response in terms of global improvement, with multiple associated moderators. We recommend future trials apply a run-in period of at least 2 weeks and dose once or twice a day to minimise the placebo response rate.

FUNDING

None.

Evaluating When and Why Patients Discontinue Chronic Therapy for Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Constipation and Chronic Idiopathic Constipation

INTRODUCTION

To inform the patient-centered discussion regarding comparative outcomes with irritable bowel syndrome/chronic idiopathic constipation pharmacotherapy, we evaluated reasons and timing of discontinuation of FDA-approved pharmacotherapy for irritable bowel syndrome and chronic idiopathic constipation in a large observational real-world cohort.

METHODS

We identified patients initiating lubiprostone or linaclotide within the University of Michigan Electronic Medical Record (2012-2016). Medication start and stop dates were determined in manual chart review including detailed review of all documentation including office notes and telephone encounters. A Cox model was constructed to predict the hazard of discontinuation.

RESULTS

On multivariate analysis of 1,612 patients, linaclotide users had a lower risk of discontinuing therapy than lubiprostone users for any reason (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5-0.8). At 3 and 12 months, the overall discontinuation rates were 23% and 43% for lubiprostone compared with 14% and 24% for linaclotide. Over the first year of therapy, more than half of discontinuations due to intolerance occurred in the first 3 months for both drugs. Linaclotide users were more likely to discontinue due to intolerance (HR = 1.6 [95% CI, 1.2-2.3]) but less likely to discontinue due to insufficient efficacy of therapy (HR = 0.5 [95% CI, 0.4-0.8]). IBS diagnosis increased the hazard of discontinuation of lubiprostone relative to linactolide (HR = 1.4, 95% CI, 1.1-1.6). Loss of prescription drug coverage remained a common reason for discontinuation over the first year of therapy.

DISCUSSION

Individuals appear more likely to discontinue lubiprostone than linaclotide overall, but more likely to discontinue linaclotide compared with lubiprostone due to intolerance (mostly diarrhea). Most discontinuations due to intolerance occur in the first 3 months. These results may be useful in individualized treatment selection and enhancing patient knowledge regarding long-term outcomes.

A test of positive suggestions about side effects as a way of enhancing the analgesic response to NSAIDs

Side effects are frequent in pharmacological pain management, potentially preceding analgesia and limiting drug tolerability. Discussing side effects is part of informed consent, yet can favor nocebo effects. This study aimed to test whether a positive suggestion regarding side effects, which could act as reminders of the medication having been absorbed, might favor analgesia in a clinical interaction model. Sixty-six healthy males participated in a study "to validate pupillometry as an objective measure of analgesia". Participants were unknowingly randomized double-blind to positive vs control information about side effects embedded in a video regarding the study drugs. Sequences of moderately painful heat stimuli applied before and after treatment with diclofenac and atropine served to evaluate analgesia. Atropine was deceptively presented as a co-analgesic, but used to induce side effects. Adverse events (AE) were collected with the General Assessment of Side Effects (GASE) questionnaire prior to the second induced pain sequence. Debriefing fully informed participants regarding the purpose of the study and showed them the two videos.The combination of medication led to significant analgesia, without a between-group difference. Positive information about side effects increased the attribution of AE to the treatment compared to the control information. The total GASE score was correlated with analgesia, i.e., the more AEs reported, the stronger the analgesia. Interestingly, there was a significant between-groups difference on this correlation: the GASE score and analgesia correlated only in the positive information group. This provides evidence for a selective link between AEs and pain relief in the group who received the suggestion that AEs could be taken as a sign "that help was on the way". During debriefing, 65% of participants said they would prefer to receive the positive message in a clinical context. Although the present results cannot be translated immediately to clinical pain conditions, they do indicate the importance of testing this type of modulation in a clinical context.

Placebo Effects in Psychotherapy: A Framework

The issue of placebo response and the extent of its effect on psychotherapy is complex for two specific reasons: i) Current standards for drug trials, e.g., true placebo interventions, double-blinding, cannot be applied to most psychotherapy techniques, and ii) some of the "nonspecific effects" in drug therapy have very specific effects in psychotherapy, such as the frequency and intensity of patient-therapist interaction. In addition, different psychotherapy approaches share many such specific effects (the "dodo bird verdict") and lack specificity with respect to therapy outcome. Here, we discuss the placebo effect in psychotherapy under four aspects: a) nonspecific factors shared with drug therapy (context factors); b) nonspecific factors shared among all psychotherapy traditions (common factors); c) specific placebo-controlled options with different psychotherapy modalities; and d) nonspecific control options for the specific placebo effect in psychotherapy. The resulting framework proposes that the exploration and enumeration of context factors, common factors, and specific factors contributes to the placebo effects in psychotherapy.

Placebos and the Placebo Effect in Drug Trials

In this review, we explored different ways of controlling the placebo effects in clinical trials and described various factors that may increase/decrease the placebo effect in randomized placebo-controlled trials. These factors can be subdivided into four groups, and while not all factors are effective in every study and under all clinical conditions, they show on the whole that - even under the ideal condition of drug therapy, where blinded placebo provision is much easier and warranted than in, e.g., psychotherapy - many factors need to be controlled to ascertain that the goal of the clinical trials, fair assessment of superiority of the drug over placebo in placebo-controlled trials and fair assessment of non-inferiority of the drug compared to another drug in comparator trials, is reached. Ignorance towards the placebo effect, which was common in the past, is no longer acceptable; instead, it should be the goal of all therapeutic trials to minimize the placebo effect in clinical trials, while utilizing and maximizing it in clinical routine.

Placebo Effect in the Treatment of Depression and Anxiety

The aim of this review is to evaluate the placebo effect in the treatment of anxiety and depression. Antidepressants are supposed to work by fixing a chemical imbalance, specifically, a lack of serotonin or norepinephrine in the brain. However, analyses of the published and the unpublished clinical trial data are consistent in showing that most (if not all) of the benefits of antidepressants in the treatment of depression and anxiety are due to the placebo response, and the difference in improvement between drug and placebo is not clinically meaningful and may be due to breaking blind by both patients and clinicians. Although this conclusion has been the subject of intense controversy, the current article indicates that the data from all of the published meta-analyses report the same results. This is also true of recent meta-analysis of all of the antidepressant data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the process of seeking drug approval. Also, contrary to previously published results, the new FDA analysis reveals that the placebo response has not increased over time. Other treatments (e.g., psychotherapy and physical exercise) produce the same benefits as antidepressants and do so without the side effects and health risks of the active drugs. Psychotherapy and placebo treatments also show a lower relapse rate than that reported for antidepressant medication.

Side effects can enhance treatment response through expectancy effects: an experimental analgesic randomized controlled trial

In randomized controlled trials, medication side effects may lead to beliefs that one is receiving the active intervention and enhance active treatment responses, thereby increasing drug-placebo differences. We tested these hypotheses with an experimental double-blind randomized controlled trial of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug with and without the addition of atropine to induce side effects. One hundred healthy volunteers were told they would be randomized to either combined analgesics that might produce dry mouth or inert placebos. In reality, they were randomized double blind, double-dummy to 1 of the 4 conditions: (1) 100 mg diclofenac + 1.2 mg atropine, (2) placebo + 1.2 mg atropine, (3) 100 mg diclofenac + placebo, or (4) placebo + placebo, and tested with heat-induced pain. Groups did not differ significantly in demographics, temperature producing moderate pain, state anxiety, or depression. Analgesia was observed in all groups; there was a significant interaction between diclofenac and atropine, without main effects. Diclofenac alone was not better than double-placebo. The addition of atropine increased pain relief more than 3-fold among participants given diclofenac (d = 0.77), but did not enhance the response to placebo (d = 0.09). A chain of mediation analysis demonstrated that the addition of atropine increased dry mouth symptoms, which increased beliefs that one had received the active medication, which, in turn, increased analgesia. In addition to this indirect effect of atropine on analgesia (via dry mouth and beliefs), analyses suggest that among those who received diclofenac, atropine directly increased analgesia. This possible synergistic effect between diclofenac and atropine might warrant future research.

Novel designs and paradigms to study the placebo response in gastroenterology

The investigation of the placebo and the nocebo effect and their mechanisms has a rather short history of less than 20 years, especially in gastroenterology, and only the last 5 years have resulted in substantial improvement of understanding. Placebo refers to symptom improvement following a treatment, nocebo to the opposite, symptom worsening. Among the factors driving this progress are traditional psychological models derived from learning (conditioning) theory bridging into clinical science, new animal models to investigate the pharmacology of placebo analgesia, and novel study designs to overcome limitations of traditional randomized and placebo-controlled study designs in drug testing. These are explored here for their implementation and application in gastroenterology, with a focus on visceral pain and nausea.

Placebo Mechanisms of Manual Therapy: A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing?

When a physical therapist provides a manual therapy (MT) intervention for a patient presenting with pain and the patient experiences a positive clinical outcome, we cannot answer as to why this occurs. Would we continue to devote valuable time and financial resources to learning and improving our skills in providing MT interventions if the related clinical outcomes were placebo responses? In this Viewpoint, the authors conceptualize placebo as an active and important mechanism of MT and argue that placebo mechanisms deserve consideration as an important component of the treatment effect. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(5):301-304. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.0604.

Active placebo control groups of pharmacological interventions were rarely used but merited serious consideration: a methodological overview

OBJECTIVES

Active placebos are control interventions that mimic the side effects of the experimental interventions in randomized trials and are sometimes used to reduce the risk of unblinding. We wanted to assess how often randomized clinical drug trials use active placebo control groups; to provide a catalog, and a characterization, of such trials; and to analyze methodological arguments for and against the use of active placebo.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

An overview consisting of three thematically linked substudies. In an observational substudy, we assessed the prevalence of active placebo groups based on a random sample of 200 PubMed indexed placebo-controlled randomized drug trials published in October 2013. In a systematic review, we identified and characterized trials with active placebo control groups irrespective of publication time. In a third substudy, we reviewed publications with substantial methodological comments on active placebo groups (searches in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and HighWirePress).

RESULTS

The prevalence of trials with active placebo groups published in 2013 was 1 out of 200 (95% confidence interval: 0-2), 0.5% (0-1%). We identified and characterized 89 randomized trials (published 1961-2014) using active placebos, for example, antihistamines, anticholinergic drugs, and sedatives. Such trials typically involved a crossover design, the experimental intervention had noticeable side effects, and the outcomes were patient-reported. The use of active placebos was clustered in specific research settings and did not appear to reflect consistently the side effect profile of the experimental intervention, for example, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were compared with active placebos in pain trials but not in depression trials. We identified and analyzed 25 methods publications with substantial comments. The main argument for active placebo was to reduce risk of unblinding; the main argument against was the risk of unintended therapeutic effect.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacological active placebo control interventions are rarely used in randomized clinical trials, but they constitute a methodological tool which merits serious consideration. We suggest that active placebos are used more often in trials of drugs with noticeable side effects, especially in situations where the expected therapeutic effects are modest and the risk of bias due to unblinding is high.

Placebo effects and their determinants in gastrointestinal disorders

Placebo effects in clinical trials have sparked an interest in the placebo phenomenon, both in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and in experimental gastroenterology. RCTs have demonstrated similar short-term and long-term placebo response rates in gastrointestinal compared to other medical diagnoses. Most mediators and moderators of placebo effects in gastrointestinal diseases are also of similar type and size to other medical diagnoses and not specific for gastrointestinal diagnoses. Other characteristics such as an increase in the placebo response over time and the placebo-enhancing effects of unbalanced randomization were not seen, at least in IBS. Experimental placebo and nocebo studies underscore the 'power' of expectancies and conditioning processes in shaping gastrointestinal symptoms not only at the level of self-reports, but also within the brain and along the brain-gut axis. Brain imaging studies have redressed earlier criticism that placebo effects might merely reflect a response bias. These findings raise hope that sophisticated trials and experiments designed to boost positive expectations and minimize negative expectations could pave the way for a practical and ethically sound use of placebo knowledge in daily practice. Rather than focusing on a 'personalized' choice of drugs based on biomarkers or genes, it might be the doctor-patient communication that needs to be tailored.

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.

Nocebo vs. placebo: the challenges of trial design in analgesia research

The placebo effect in randomized clinical trials appears to have increased thereby contributing to problems of demonstrating statistically reliable effects of treatments that directly target biological mechanisms. The shortcomings of randomized clinical trials are currently discussed along with potential improvements of trial designs. In this review we explain how utilizing knowledge from the placebo and nocebo mechanisms literature could improve the information that can be obtained from randomized clinical trials. We present three major challenges in randomized clinical trials: (i) increasing placebo effects, (ii) variability of the placebo effect, and (iii) risk of un-blinding. We then explain how recent placebo and nocebo studies of effects of verbal suggestion, expectancy, and emotions may improve understanding and discussion of increasing placebo effects, account/control for large parts of the variability of placebo effects, and suggest ways to improve blinding in future trials.

Traditional and innovative experimental and clinical trial designs and their advantages and pitfalls

Many study designs and design variants have been developed in the past to either overcome or enhance drug-placebo differences in clinical trials or to identify and characterize placebo responders in experimental studies. They share many commonalities as well as differences that are discussed here: the role of deception and ethical restrictions, habituation effects and the control of the natural course of disease, assay sensitivity testing and effective blinding, acceptability and motivation of patients and volunteers, and the development of individualized medicine. These are fostered by two opposite strategies: utilizing the beneficial aspects of the placebo response-and avoiding its negative counterpart, the nocebo effect-in medical routine for the benefit of patients, and minimizing-by controlling-the negative aspects of the placebo effect during drug development.