Informed consent and clinical trials: where is the placebo effect?

Boosting open-label placebo effects in acute induced pain in healthy adults (BOLPAP-study): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Introduction

Pain is a highly prevalent symptom in the hospital setting, but treatment options remain limited. Harnessing the placebo effect in an ethical manner could provide a new possibility to reduce pain in clinical practice. So called open-label placebos (OLP) have been shown to elicit significant effects in reducing acute pain. But, before implementation, more knowledge concerning the properties of OLPs is needed. This study aims to assess the duration of analgesic effects from OLP and to determine the possibility of boosting such effects.

Methods and analysis

This is the protocol of an ongoing (first patient enrolled in March 2023) single-site randomized trial investigating OLPs in two parts (i.e., substudies). In both parts, pain will be induced in healthy adults using an intradermal electrical stimulation model. Participants in Part 1 will have two study visits: An interventional visit with one OLP injection accompanied by an evidence-based treatment rationale and a control visit with no treatment. For Part 2, participants will be randomized into three groups: (1) A fixed-time "Booster" group including one single repetition of the OLP injection at a fixed time point, (2) an on-demand "Booster" group including one single repetition of the OLP injection on-demand, and (3) a control group who will receive just one OLP injection. Differences in pain ratings over time (using the Numeric Rating Scale) will be analyzed with several two-sample t-tests. The time point for a fixed-time "Booster" in Part 2 will be derived from Part 1 with additional statistical tools such as a broken-stick mixed-effect model.

Discussion

This study aims to further characterize the analgesic effects of OLPs. In doing so, it will provide valuable information needed for later implementation of OLPs in clinical practice, where they could play a role in multimodal analgesic concepts.

Ethics and dissemination

The "Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz" (BASEC 2023-00296) approved the study protocol. Results of the analysis will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Clinical Trial Registration

This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05819476) and is listed in the Swiss National Registry at kofam.ch (SNCTP000005470).

The role of positive information provision in open-label placebo effects

Open label placebos (OLPs) appear generally efficacious among clinical samples, but the empirical evidence regarding their use in non-clinical and sub-clinical samples, as well as when administered independent of a convincing rationale, is mixed. Healthy participants (N = 102) were randomised to either a 6-day course of OLP pills with information provision (OLP-plus: N = 35), without information provision (OLP-only: N = 35), or no-treatment control group (N = 32). OLP pills were described as enhancing physical (symptoms and sleep) and psychological (positive and negative emotional) well-being. Well-being was assessed at baseline and on Day 6. Expectancies and adherence were measured. OLP administration interacted with baseline well-being. The OLP-plus group demonstrated increased well-being on all outcomes other than positive emotions, but only when they reported decreased baseline well-being. OLP-only and control groups did not differ. The OLP-plus group demonstrated elevated expectancies, that mediated the OLP effect on physical symptoms relative to control, but only when well-being was lower than average at baseline (i.e. moderated-mediation). Results demonstrate the importance of information provided with OLPs. The moderating effect of baseline outcomes may reconcile inconsistent results regarding clinical and non-clinical samples. Accounting for baseline symptoms in non-clinical and sub-clinical samples is likely to enhance our understanding of when OLPs are effective.

Proportion attributable to contextual effects in general medicine: a meta-epidemiological study based on Cochrane reviews

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to examine the magnitude of the proportion attributable to contextual effects (PCE), which shows what proportion of the treatment arm response can be achieved by the placebo arm across various interventions, and to examine PCE variability by outcome type and condition.

DESIGN

We conducted a meta-epidemiological study.

SETTING

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews with the keyword 'placebo' in titles, abstracts and keywords on 1 January 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

We included reviews that showed statistically significant beneficial effects of the intervention over placebo for the first primary outcome.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate PCEs based on the pooled result of each included review, grouped by outcome type and condition. The PCE quantifies how much of the observed treatment response can be achieved by the contextual effects.

PUBLIC AND PATIENT INVOLVEMENT STATEMENT

No patient or member of the public was involved in conducting this research.

RESULTS

We included 328 out of 3175 Cochrane systematic reviews. The results of meta-analyses showed that PCEs varied greatly depending on outcome type (I²=98%) or condition (I²=98%), but mostly lie between 0.40 and 0.95. Overall, the PCEs were 0.65 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.72) on average. Subjective outcomes were 0.50 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.59), which was significantly smaller than those of semiobjective (PCE 0.78; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.85) or objective outcomes (PCE 0.94; 95% CI 0.91 to 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that much of the observed benefit is not just due to the specific effect of the interventions. The specific effects of interventions may be larger for subjective outcomes than for objective or semiobjective outcomes. However, PCEs were exceptionally variable. When we evaluate the magnitude of PCEs, we should consider each PCE individually, for each condition, intervention and outcome in its context, to assess the importance of an intervention for each specific clinical setting.

Informed Consent for Placebo-Controlled Trials: Do Ethics and Science Conflict?

The use of a placebo has been considered the best method for controlling bias in a prospective randomized clinical trial and provides the most rigorous test of treatment efficacy for evaluating a medical therapy. Placebos commonly produce clinically important effects particularly in studies where the primary outcomes are subjective. Yet the potential beneficial or harmful effects of placebos are often not addressed in designing a clinical trial, calculating the sample size, seeking consent, or interpreting clinical trial results. In this manuscript, we use an actual study to indicate three approaches that might be considered in seeking informed consent for placebo-controlled trials, and we explore the fundamental ethical and scientific complexities involved with each.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Consideration in Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial on Neck Pain to Avoid the Placebo Effect in Analgesic Action

Background: In neck pain treatment, many therapies are focused on etiology, while it is well-known that placebo analgesia is also present in these therapies. The specific efficacy for etiology may be underestimated by ignoring their actual placebo effect. In this study, a logistic regression analysis is used to explore the risk factors causing different placebo responses in patients with neck pain among two RCTs. The probability of the placebo effect is predicted based on these risk factors.

Methods: Trial A and Trial B were similarly designed, randomized, double-/single-blind, placebo-controlled trials in patients treating neck pain with Qishe pill or Shi-style manipulation. Both studies set a placebo pill twice a day or traction for every other day as control. For further analyses on the placebo effect in neck pain management, logistic regression was used to assess subgroup-placebo interactions. The odds ratio assessed a significant influence on the placebo effect.

Results: In this pooled analysis, the total number of patients recruited for these two studies was 284, of which 162 patients received placebo treatment (placebo drug or traction for every other day). No statistically significant differences are found at baseline between the participants with placebo effect and non-placebo effect in the gender, age, and disease duration except in VAS and NDI at the initial time. There are numerically more patients with placebo effect in the shorter disease duration subgroup (< 4 months [76%]), higher initial VAS subgroup (>60 mm [90%]), and worse initial NDI subgroup (>24 [72%]) compared with the gender and age subgroup. An ROC curve is established to assess the model-data fit, which shows an area under the curve of 0.755 and a 95% confidence interval of 0.677–0.830. Participants who show placebo effect after 2 weeks have significantly lower VAS scores after 4 weeks, while there is no significant difference in NDI improvement between the two groups after 4 weeks.

Conclusion: Neck pain patients with shorter disease duration are more likely to overscore their pain severity, because of their less experience in pain perception, tolerance, and analgesia expectation.

Placebo Response Rates in Acupuncture Therapy Trials for Functional Dyspepsia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a functional digestive disease with limited management selection. Previous studies revealed that acupuncture therapy is effective for FD. However, because sham controls were not implemented in most clinical trials following acupuncture therapy, it is difficult to differentiate overall treatment responses from placebo. This study aims to quantify placebo responses in clinical trials in which FD patients received sham manual acupuncture (MA) and sham electroacupuncture (EA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Randomized controlled trials of MA and EA for FD patients were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases, as well as 4 Chinese language databases from inception to January 2021. RevMan 5.20 software was used for pooled analysis of symptom scores and quality of life. The symptom scores were combined using standard mean difference (SMD) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The quality of included studies was tested using modified Jadad scale and Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) checklist. Egger's test, Begg's test, and sensitivity analyses were conducted using Stata 11.0 statistical software. The protocol of this study is registered in PROSPERO as CRD42021233858.

RESULTS

After screening, the current systematic review included 13 randomized controlled trials, of which 8 studies were used in the meta-analysis. Regarding subjective outcomes, the combined effect of sham MA on FD symptoms was [SMD=-0.42, 95% CI (-0.72, -0.12); P=0.005], whereas sham EA treatment was [SMD=-0.54, 95% CI (-0.81, -0.27); P<0.001]. The combined effect on FD quality of life of post-sham MA group was [SMD=-0.32, 95% CI (-0.52, -0.12); P=0.002]. With regard to objective outcomes, the combined effect of sham EA on dominant frequency was [WMD=-0.11, 95% CI (-0.30, -0.08); P=0.24], while the combined effect of sham EA on dominant power was [WMD=-3.35, 95% CI (-8.04, 1.35); P=0.16].

CONCLUSIONS

Sham MA and sham EA remarkably improve symptoms and quality of life scores of FD without influencing objective outcomes, highlighting the significance of sham controls in acupuncture therapy clinical trials.

Open-Label Placebo Treatment for Acute Postoperative Pain (OLP-POP Study): Study Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction: Open-label placebos have been proposed as way of using long recognized analgesic placebo effects in an ethical manner. Recent evidence shows efficacy of open-label placebos for clinical conditions, but there is need for more research on open-label placebos in acute pain. In the treatment of acute postoperative pain, minimization of opioid related side effects remains one of the key challenges. Therefore, this study aims at investigating the potential of adding unconditioned open-label placebos to treatment as usual as a means of reducing opioid consumption and its related side effects in patients with acute postoperative pain. Methods and Analysis: This is the protocol of an ongoing single site randomized controlled trial. The first patient was enrolled in May 2020. In total, 70 patients suffering from acute postoperative pain following dorsal lumbar interbody fusion are randomized to either a treatment as usual group or an experimental intervention group. The treatment as usual group consists of participants receiving a patient-controlled morphine pump. On day 1 and 2 post-surgery, patients in the intervention group receive, in addition to treatment as usual, two open-label placebo injections per day along with an evidence-based treatment rationale explaining the mechanisms of placebos. The primary outcome is measured by means of self-administered morphine during day 1 and 2 post-surgery. Several other outcome measures including pain intensity and adverse events as well as potential predictors of placebo response are assessed. Analysis of covariance will be used to answer the primary research question and additional statistical techniques such as generalized linear mixed models will be applied to model the temporal course of morphine consumption. Discussion: This study will provide valuable insights into the efficacy of open-label placebos in acute pain and will potentially constitute an important step toward the implementation of open-label placebos in the clinical management of acute postoperative pain. In addition, it will shed light on a cost-efficient and patient-centered strategy to reduce opioid consumption and its related side effects, without any loss in pain management efficacy. Ethics and Dissemination: The "Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz" (BASEC2020-00099) approved the study protocol. Results of the analysis will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Clinical Trial Registration: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04339023) and is listed in the Swiss national registry at kofam.ch (SNCTP000003720).

Placebo comparator group selection and use in surgical trials: the ASPIRE project including expert workshop

BACKGROUND

The use of placebo comparisons for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions is increasingly being considered. However, a placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials and to summarise any recommendations for designers, evaluators and funders of placebo-controlled surgical trials.

DESIGN

To carry out a state-of-the-art workshop and produce a corresponding report involving key stakeholders throughout.

SETTING

A workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines.

RESULTS

To assess what a placebo control entails and to assess the understanding of this tool in the context of surgery is considered, along with when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable). We have considered ethics arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be carried out and interpreted. The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with a high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. An outline for best practice was produced in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) guidelines for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial.

LIMITATIONS

Although the workshop participants involved international members, the majority of participants were from the UK. Therefore, although every attempt was made to make the recommendations applicable to all health systems, the guidelines may, unconsciously, be particularly applicable to clinical practice in the UK NHS.

FUTURE WORK

Future work should evaluate the use of the ASPIRE guidelines in making decisions about the use of a placebo-controlled surgical trial. In addition, further work is required on the appropriate nomenclature to adopt in this space.

FUNDING

Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme.

Conditioned open-label placebo for opioid reduction after spine surgery: a randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT

Placebo effects have traditionally involved concealment or deception. However, recent evidence suggests that placebo effects can also be elicited when prescribed transparently as "open-label placebos" (OLPs), and that the pairing of an unconditioned stimulus (eg, opioid analgesic) with a conditioned stimulus (eg, placebo pill) can lead to the conditioned stimulus alone reducing pain. In this randomized control trial, we investigated whether combining conditioning with an OLP (COLP) in the immediate postoperative period could reduce daily opioid use and postsurgical pain among patients recovering from spine surgery. Patients were randomized to COLP or treatment as usual, with both groups receiving unrestricted access to a typical opioid-based postoperative analgesic regimen. The generalized estimating equations method was used to assess the treatment effect of COLP on daily opioid consumption and pain during postoperative period from postoperative day (POD) 1 to POD 17. Patients in the COLP group consumed approximately 30% less daily morphine milligram equivalents compared with patients in the treatment as usual group during POD 1 to 17 (-14.5 daily morphine milligram equivalents; 95% CI: [-26.8, -2.2]). Daily worst pain scores were also lower in the COLP group (-1.0 point on the 10-point scale; 95% CI: [-2.0, -0.1]), although a significant difference was not detected in average daily pain between the groups (-0.8 point; 95% CI: [-1.7, 0.2]). These findings suggest that COLP may serve as a potential adjuvant analgesic therapy to decrease opioid consumption in the early postoperative period, without increasing pain.

Effects of Open-Label Placebos on State Anxiety and Glucocorticoid Stress Responses

Stress belongs to the most frequent negative feelings people are confronted with in daily life. Strategies against acute stress include, e.g., relaxation techniques or medications, but it is also known that placebos can successfully reduce negative emotional stress. While it is widely held that placebos require deception to provoke a response, recent studies demonstrate intriguing evidence that placebos may work even without concealment (e.g., against anxiety or pain). Most of these studies are based on self-report questionnaires and do not include physiological measures. Here we report results of a study examining whether placebos without deception reduce acute stress. A total of 53 healthy individuals received either placebos without deception or no pills before participating in a laboratory stress test (Maastricht Acute Stress Test, MAST). We recorded self-report stress measures and cortisol responses before and after the MAST. Results showed no significant differences between the placebo and the control group, but when comparing participants with high relative to low beliefs in the power of placebos we found significant lower anxiety and cortisol responses for the placebo believers. These results show that non-deceptive placebos may successfully reduce acute anxiety and stress, but only in participants who had a strong belief in placebos. We discuss the results by suggesting that open-label placebos might be a possible treatment to reduce stress at least for some individuals.

Digital tools in the informed consent process: a systematic review

Background

Providing understandable information to patients is necessary to achieve the aims of the Informed Consent process: respecting and promoting patients’ autonomy and protecting patients from harm. In recent decades, new, primarily digital technologies have been used to apply and test innovative formats of Informed Consent. We conducted a systematic review to explore the impact of using digital tools for Informed Consent in both clinical research and in clinical practice. Understanding, satisfaction and participation were compared for digital tools versus the non-digital Informed Consent process.

Methods

We searched for studies on available electronic databases, including Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane. Studies were identified using specific Mesh-terms/keywords. We included studies, published from January 2012 to October 2020, that focused on the use of digital Informed Consent tools for clinical research, or clinical procedures. Digital interventions were defined as interventions that used multimedia or audio–video to provide information to patients. We classified the interventions into 3 different categories: video only, non-interactive multimedia, and interactive multimedia.

Results

Our search yielded 19,579 publications. After title and abstract screening 100 studies were retained for full-text analysis, of which 73 publications were included. Studies examined interactive multimedia (29/73), non-interactive multimedia (13/73), and videos (31/73), and most (34/38) studies were conducted on adults. Innovations in consent were tested for clinical/surgical procedures (26/38) and clinical research (12/38). For research IC, 21 outcomes were explored, with a positive effect on at least one of the studied outcomes being observed in 8/12 studies. For clinical/surgical procedures 49 outcomes were explored, and 21/26 studies reported a positive effect on at least one of the studied outcomes.

Conclusions

Digital technologies for informed consent were not found to negatively affect any of the outcomes, and overall, multimedia tools seem desirable. Multimedia tools indicated a higher impact than videos only. Presence of a researcher may potentially enhance efficacy of different outcomes in research IC processes. Studies were heterogeneous in design, making evaluation of impact challenging. Robust study design including standardization is needed to conclusively assess impact.

Effects of open-label placebos in clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open-label placebos (OLPs) are placebos without deception in the sense that patients know that they are receiving a placebo. The objective of our study is to systematically review and analyze the effect of OLPs in comparison to no treatment in clinical trials. A systematic literature search was carried out in February 2020. Randomized controlled trials of any medical condition or mental disorder comparing OLPs to no treatment were included. Data extraction and risk of bias rating were independently assessed. 1246 records were screened and thirteen studies were included into the systematic review. Eleven trials were eligible for meta-analysis. These trials assessed effects of OLPs on back pain, cancer-related fatigue, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, allergic rhinitis, major depression, irritable bowel syndrome and menopausal hot flushes. Risk of bias was moderate among all studies. We found a significant overall effect (standardized mean difference = 0.72, 95% Cl 0.39–1.05, p < 0.0001, I² = 76%) of OLP. Thus, OLPs appear to be a promising treatment in different conditions but the respective research is in its infancy. More research is needed, especially with respect to different medical and mental disorders and instructions accompanying the OLP administration as well as the role of expectations and mindsets.

Impact of Clinical Outcome Measures on Placebo Response Rates in Clinical Trials for Chronic Constipation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Chronic constipation (CC) is a recurrent functional bowel disorder worldwide. The purpose of this study is to examine its pooled placebo response rate and compare placebo response level in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with different endpoint assessments.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase were electronically searched for therapeutic RCTs of CC with placebo control. Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were performed independently by 2 reviewers. All the statistical calculation and analysis were performed using R 3.6.0. Our protocol has registered in PROSPERO with registration number: CRD42019121287.

RESULTS

There were 46 studies included with 5,992 constipated patients allocated to the placebo arm in total. The pooled placebo response rate was 28.75% (95% confidence interval: 23.83%-33.67%) with significant heterogeneity among trials ((Equation is included in full-text article.)= 93.6%). Treatment efficacy assessed using subjective improvement had a significantly higher placebo response rate than that assessed with improvement in complete (spontaneous) bowel movements or composite improvement (41.40% vs 18.31% or 20.35%, P < 0.001). According to the results of meta-regression, active treatment and endpoint assessment were most likely to lead to the huge heterogeneity among studies.

DISCUSSION

Patients with CC have significant response level to placebo. Based on findings in this study, we do not recommend subjective improvement as endpoint while designing therapeutic RCTs for chronic constipated patients.

Overcoming Barriers to Parkinson Disease Trial Participation: Increasing Diversity and Novel Designs for Recruitment and Retention

Parkinson disease (PD) is highly prevalent among neurodegenerative diseases, affecting a diverse patient population. Despite a general willingness of patients to participate in clinical trials, only a subset of patients enroll in them. Understanding the barriers to trial participation will help to alleviate this discrepancy and improve trial participation. Underrepresented minorities, older patients, and patients with more medical comorbidities in particular are underrepresented in research. In clinical trials, this has the effect of delaying trial completion, exacerbating disparities, and limiting our ability to generalize study results. Efforts to improve trial design and recruitment are necessary to ensure study enrollment reflects the diversity of patients with PD. At the trial design level, broadening inclusion criteria, attending to participant burden, and focusing on trial efficiency may help. At the recruitment stage, increasing awareness, with traditional outreach or digital approaches; improving engagement, particularly with community physicians; and developing targeted recruitment efforts can also help improve enrollment of underrepresented patient groups. The use of technology, for virtual visits, technology-based objective measures, and community engagement, can also reduce participant burden and increase recruitment. By designing trials to consider these barriers to trial participation, we can improve not only the access to research for all our patients but also the quality and generalizability of clinical research in PD.

Can insights from placebo and nocebo mechanisms studies improve the randomized controlled trial?

Background and aims The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is currently facing several challenges, one of these being that the placebo response appears to be increasing in RCTs, thereby making it difficult to demonstrate an effect of potentially new treatments over placebo. This problem has primarily been approached by predicting the magnitude of the placebo response via stable factors, such as demographic variables, and/or by developing complex designs aimed at reducing the placebo response in the hope that it will improve the test of the active treatment. Yet, the success of this approach has so far been limited. Methods A new approach toward improving the RCT is put forward based on placebo and nocebo mechanism studies, i.e. studies that investigate the mechanisms underlying placebo analgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia. In a series of meta-analyses the magnitude of placebo and nocebo effects were determined. Experimental studies across nociplastic and neuropathic pain conditions and across pharmacological and acupuncture treatments investigated psychological and neurobiological mechanisms underlying these effects. The obtained results were used to make approximations of expectations to see if that could predict the placebo response in RCTs and function as a new way of tapping into the placebo component of treatment effects. Results The magnitude of placebo and nocebo effects is large and highly variable. Placebo effects exist across chronic pain conditions with varying degrees of known etiology as well as across pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. Patients' perception of the treatment, the verbal suggestions given for pain relief, and the patients' expectations toward pain relief contribute to the magnitude of the placebo effect and to pain relief following placebo interventions. Also, unintentional unblinding and patients' perception of a treatment markedly influence the treatment outcome. By making approximations of expectations toward treatment effects it was possible to predict the magnitude of the placebo response in RCTs. Conclusions and implications The new approach of tapping into or directly asking patients about their perception and expectations toward a treatment, along with the account of the natural history of pain, has the potential to improve the information that can be obtained from RCTs. Thus, by interfacing insights from placebo and nocebo mechanism studies, it may be possible to enhance the information that can be obtained from RCTs and to account for a large part of the variability in the placebo component of the overall treatment effect. This approach has the potential to improve the scientific evaluation of treatments, as well as to illustrate how the effect of treatments can be optimized in clinical practice, which is the crux of evidence-based medicine.

Placebos in chronic pain: evidence, theory, ethics, and use in clinical practice

Despite their ubiquitous presence, placebos and placebo effects retain an ambiguous and unsettling presence in biomedicine. Specifically focused on chronic pain, this review examines the effect of placebo treatment under three distinct frameworks: double blind, deception, and open label honestly prescribed. These specific conditions do not necessarily differentially modify placebo outcomes. Psychological, clinical, and neurological theories of placebo effects are scrutinized. In chronic pain, conscious expectation does not reliably predict placebo effects. A supportive patient-physician relationship may enhance placebo effects. This review highlights "predictive coding" and "bayesian brain" as emerging models derived from computational neurobiology that offer a unified framework to explain the heterogeneous evidence on placebos. These models invert the dogma of the brain as a stimulus driven organ to one in which perception relies heavily on learnt, top down, cortical predictions to infer the source of incoming sensory data. In predictive coding/bayesian brain, both chronic pain (significantly modulated by central sensitization) and its alleviation with placebo treatment are explicated as centrally encoded, mostly non-conscious, bayesian biases. The review then evaluates seven ways in which placebos are used in clinical practice and research and their bioethical implications. In this way, it shows that placebo effects are evidence based, clinically relevant, and potentially ethical tools for relieving chronic pain.

The “placebo” paradox and the emotion paradox: Challenges to psychological explanation

Philosophical debates about how best to explain emotion or placebo are debates about how best to characterise and explain the distinctive form of human responsiveness to the world that is the object of interest for each of those domains of inquiry. In emotion research, the cognitive theory of emotion faces several intractable problems. I discuss two of these: the problem of epistemic deficit and the problem of recalcitrant emotions. Cognitive explanations in Placebo Studies, such as response-expectancy and belief-based explanations, also face the problem of epistemic deficit in addition to the problem of logically self-destructive true belief. While such considerations might motivate a retreat to affect, this brings its own problems. I argue that it is a particular version of cognitivism, representational cognitivism (Rep-Cog), that generates the paradoxes we encounter in emotion and placebo research. I propose that turning to nonrepresentational accounts of cognition will dissolve these paradoxes. As I move toward conclusion, I propose drawing on the ethnomethodological tradition to respecify human responsiveness to loci of significance in the lifeworld by undertaking ethnographies of members’ own situated methods for making intelligible and accountable their attitudinal and nonattitudinal responsiveness to loci of significance in their environment.

The Powerful Placebo Effect in Cough: Relevance to Treatment and Clinical Trials

Interest in the placebo effect of medicines has developed from the use of placebo treatments as controls in clinical trials into a whole new area of research around how placebos fit into a psychosocial model of therapeutics. The large placebo effect associated with cough medicines is both a problem and an opportunity for researchers: a problem for clinical trials on new actives as the active must beat the large placebo effect, and an opportunity for harnessing the placebo effect to produce effective cough medicines without any pharmacologically active ingredient. This review discusses the mechanisms associated with the placebo effect of cough medicines and distinguishes between a 'perceived placebo effect' and a true 'placebo effect'. The efficacy of sweeteners in cough syrups is discussed as well as viscosity, mucoadhesion, and flavoring. The complexity of modern cough medicines is demonstrated by an example of a medicine which contains one active ingredient, and eighteen excipients which provide a complex and intense sensory experience to enhance the placebo effect and complement the pharmacological activity of the medicine.

Enhancing the Informed Consent Process Using Shared Decision Making and Consent Refusal Data from the CLEAR III Trial

BACKGROUND

The process of informed consent in National Institutes of Health randomized, placebo-controlled trials is poorly studied. There are several issues regarding informed consent in emergency neurologic trials, including a shared decision-making process with the patient or a legally authorized representative about overall risks, benefits, and alternative treatments.

METHODS

To evaluate the informed consent process, we collected best and worst informed consent practice information from a National Institutes of Health trial and used this in medical simulation videos to educate investigators at multiple sites to improve the consent process. Clot Lysis: Evaluating Accelerated Resolution of Intraventricular Hemorrhage Phase III (CLEAR III) (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00784134) studied the effect of intraventricular alteplase (n = 251) versus saline (placebo) injections (n = 249) for intraventricular hemorrhage reduction. Reasons for ineligibility (including refusing to consent) for all screen failures were analyzed. The broadcasted presentation outlined best practices for doctor-patient interactions during the consenting process, as well as anecdotal, study-specific reasons for consent refusal. Best and worst consent elements were then incorporated into a simulation video to enhance the informed consent process. This video was disseminated to trial sites as a webinar around the midpoint of the trial to improve the consent process. Pre- and post-intervention consent refusals were compared.

RESULTS

During the trial, 10,538 patients were screened for eligibility, of which only three were excluded due to trial timing. Pre-intervention, 77 of 5686 (1.40%) screen eligible patients or their proxies refused consent. Post-intervention, 55 of 4849 (1.10%) refused consent, which was not significantly different from pre-intervention (P = 0.312). The incidence of screen failures was significantly lower post-intervention (P = 0.006), possibly due to several factors for patient exclusion.

CONCLUSION

The informed consent process for prospective randomized trials may be enhanced by studying and refining best practices based on trial-specific plans and patient concerns particular to a study.

Placebo Response Rates in Electrical Nerve Stimulation Trials for Fecal Incontinence and Constipation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Successful treatments following electrical nerve stimulation have been commonly reported in patients with fecal incontinence and constipation. However, many of these nerve stimulation trials have not implemented sham controls, and are, therefore, unable to differentiate overall treatment responses from placebo. This systematic review aimed to quantify placebo effects and responses following sham electrical nerve stimulation in patients with fecal incontinence and constipation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature search of Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was conducted from inception to April 2017. Randomized sham-controlled trials investigating the effect of lower gastrointestinal electrical nerve stimulation in fecal incontinence and constipation were included. Pediatric and non-sham controlled trials were excluded.

RESULTS

Ten randomized sham-controlled trials were included. Sham stimulation resulted in improvements in fecal incontinence episodes by 1.3 episodes per week (95% CI -2.53 to -0.01, p = 0.05), fecal urgency by 1.5 episodes per week (CI -3.32 to 0.25, p = 0.09), and Cleveland Clinic Severity scores by 2.2 points (CI 1.01 to 3.36, p = 0.0003). Sham also improved symptoms of constipation with improved stool frequency (1.3 episodes per week, CI 1.16 to 1.42, p < 0.00001), Wexner Constipation scores (5.0 points, CI -7.45 to -2.54 p < 0.0001), and Gastrointestinal Quality of Life scores (7.9 points, CI -0.46 to 16.18, p = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Sham stimulation is associated with clinical and statistically meaningful improvements in symptoms of fecal incontinence and constipation, as well as quality of life scores, highlighting the importance of sham controls in nerve stimulation trials. Noncontrolled studies should be interpreted with caution.

Effects of a probiotic treatment (Enterococcus faecalis) and open-label placebo on symptoms of allergic rhinitis: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Several studies suggest that gut microbiota may play an important role in allergic diseases. The present trial aims to examine effects of the probiotic Enterococcus faecalis on symptoms of allergic rhinitis in patients. Effects of this probiotic on the immune system have been reported by several studies, but the majority of the previous trials were animal studies. In addition, it is well known that symptoms in allergic rhinitis are prone to exhibit high placebo responses. Moreover, recent studies report that even placebos without deception (open-label placebos) are highly effective in reducing symptoms of allergic rhinitis. Our study design combines both new approaches to assess effects on allergic symptoms in patients. The objective of this study is to compare the effects of a probiotic treatment (E. faecalis) with effects seen by open-label placebo, concealed placebo treatment and no treatment control.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A total of 120 patients with allergic rhinitis will be randomly assigned to one of four different groups: a double-blind probiotic/placebo group (groups 1 and 2), an open-label placebo group (group 3) and a no-treatment group (group 4) to control for spontaneous variation of symptoms. The primary outcome is the evaluation of allergic symptoms using the Combined Symptoms Medication Score. Furthermore, health-related quality of life is examined (Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire). Secondary outcomes include a visual analogue scale on allergic burden and a second quality of life questionnaire. This report describes the study design of the randomised controlled trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study design was approved by the ethical committee of the UKT Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Tübingen, Germany. The trial is registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (www.drks.de, DRKS00015804). The trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and at conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

German Clinical Trials Register (www.drks.de, DRKS00015804); Pre-results.

Deceptive but not open label placebos attenuate motion-induced nausea

OBJECTIVE

Nausea is a common complaint, known to respond to the placebo effect. Existing research has employed deception when administering placebos for nausea, limiting therapeutic translation on ethical grounds. We therefore examined the potential of non-deceptive open-label placebos (OLPs) to reduce nausea.

METHODS

Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation (GVS) and Virtual Reality (VR) were employed to model nausea in healthy volunteers across two experiments. In both experiments nausea was elicited with and without sham treatment (peppermint vapor and brain stimulation, respectively). In Exp. 1, participants (n = 61) were randomized to deceptive placebo, semi-open placebo, fully-open placebo, or control. In Exp. 2, participants (n = 93) were randomized to deceptive placebo, semi-open placebo, or control.

RESULTS

Exp. 1 found limited evidence for a placebo effect (F(1, 56) = 1.15, p = .29, η_p² =0.02), even following deceptive treatment (F(1, 56) = 1.92, p = .17, η_p²=0.03). In Exp. 2, deceptive placebo reduced nausea relative to control (F(1, 89) = 6.91, p = .010, η_p²=0.07) and OLP (F(1, 89) = 5.47, p = .022, η_p²=0.06). Pooled Bayesian analysis across experiments provided strong evidence that deceptive placebos reduce nausea relative to control (BF₁₀ = 30.91) and anecdotal evidence for the benefit of deceptive treatment over non-deceptive (BF₁₀ = 2.46) and no benefit of OLP over control (BF₁₀ = 0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

No positive evidence for OLP effects in nausea were observed. However, a deceptive effect in VR was observed. These findings raise questions regarding the efficacy of open-label intervention in nausea.

Animations about Clinical Trial Participation for Cancer Patients and Survivors

Communicating about clinical trials and medical research is challenging. An appropriate communication is essential to reduce some of the barriers associated with poor patients' enrollment in clinical trials and with patients' uninformed consent or uninformed refusal. An experiment was conducted to assess the effects of educational animations compared to brochures with and without visuals, and with the materials currently used by the NIH. These materials focused on explaining placebos, randomization, the steps necessary to enroll in a clinical trial, and how and by who patients' protection is ensured. A total of 1194 cancer patients and survivors completed this 4 by 4 experiment through a Qualtrics panel. The findings showed that animations improved participants knowledge about and attitudes toward clinical trials and were more effective than brochures presenting information from the NIH, especially for those individuals with low motivation and low ability to comprehend health-related information. Several evidence-based theoretical explanations of the functioning of animations are provided.

Open-label placebos reduce test anxiety and improve self-management skills: A randomized-controlled trial

Test anxiety is a condition in which people experience extreme distress and anxiety before and in test situations. It affects up to 40 percent of all students. Conventional treatment includes both medication and psychotherapy, but studies also demonstrated that placebos affect anxiety symptoms. Although in the traditional understanding placebos need to be administered in a concealed way, intriguing new studies report that open-label placebos can be effective. Since prescription of fake pills involves ethical problems, open-label placebos may provide important new treatment possibilities. Here we report results of a pilot study examining whether open-label placebos may reduce test anxiety and improve self-management skills. 58 students participated in a two-group randomized controlled trial. Two weeks before an exam at the university participants received open-label placebos or no pills (control group). Participant – provider relationship and amount of contact time was held similar for all groups. After two weeks we found that test anxiety and self-management abilities (skills and resources) of the open-label placebo group were more improved than in the control group. Thus, our results seems to indicate that open-label placebos may reduce test anxiety and enhance self-management skills in students.

Pain, placebo, and test of treatment efficacy: a narrative review

Over the past decade, the mechanisms underlying placebo effects have begun to be identified. At the same time, the placebo response appears to have increased in pharmacological trials and marked placebo effects are found in neurostimulation and surgical trials, thereby posing the question whether non-pharmacological interventions should be placebo-controlled to a greater extent. In this narrative review we discuss how the knowledge of placebo mechanisms may help to improve placebo control in pharmacological and non-pharmacological trials. We review the psychological, neurobiological, and genetic mechanisms underlying placebo analgesia and outline the current problems and potential solutions to the challenges with placebo control in trials on pharmacological, neurostimulation, and surgical interventions. We particularly focus on how patients' perception of the therapeutic intervention, and their expectations towards treatment efficacy may help develop more precise placebo controls and blinding procedures and account for the contribution of placebo factors to the efficacy of active treatments. Finally, we discuss how systematic investigations into placebo mechanisms across various pain conditions and types of treatment are needed in order to 'personalise' the placebo control to the specific pathophysiology and interventions, which may ultimately lead to identification of more effective treatment for pain patients. In conclusion this review shows that it is important to understand how patients' perception and expectations influence the efficacy of active and placebo treatments in order to improve the test of new treatments. Importantly, this applies not only to assessment of drug efficacy but also to non-pharmacological trials on surgeries and stimulation procedures.

Informing Adults With Back Pain About Placebo Effects: Randomized Controlled Evaluation of a New Website With Potential to Improve Informed Consent in Clinical Research

Background

Placebo effects and their underpinning mechanisms are increasingly well understood. However, this is poorly communicated to participants in placebo-controlled trials. For valid informed consent, participants should be informed about the potential benefits and risks of participating in placebo-controlled trials. Existing information leaflets often fail to describe the potential benefits and adverse effects associated with placebo allocation. This study tested the effects of a new website designed to inform patients about placebo effects (The Power of Placebos, PoP). PoP was designed using qualitative methods in combination with theory- and evidence-based approaches to ensure it was engaging, informative, and addressed patients’ concerns.

Objective

This study aimed to test the effects of PoP, compared with a control website, on people’s knowledge about placebo and the ability to make an informed choice about taking part in a placebo-controlled trial.

Methods

A total of 350 adults with back pain recruited from 26 general practices in Southern England participated in this Web-based study. Participants were randomly assigned to PoP (which presented scientifically accurate information about placebo effects in an engaging way) or a control website (based on existing information leaflets from UK trials). Participants self-completed Web-based pre- and postintervention questionnaire measures of knowledge about placebo effects and preintervention questionnaire measures of attitudes toward and intentions to participate in a placebo-controlled trial. The 2 primary outcomes were (1) knowledge and (2) informed choice to take part in a placebo-controlled trial (computed from knowledge, attitudes, and intentions).

Results

After viewing PoP, participants had significantly greater knowledge about placebos (mean 8.28 [SD 1.76]; n=158) than participants who viewed the control (mean 5.60 [SD 2.24]; n=174; F_1,329=173.821; P<.001; η²=.346). Participants who viewed PoP were 3.16 times more likely than those who viewed the control to make an informed choice about placebos (χ²₁=36.5; P<.001).

Conclusions

In a sample of adults with back pain, PoP increased knowledge and rates of informed choice about placebos compared with a control website. PoP could be used to improve knowledge about placebo effects in back pain. After essential further development and testing in clinical trial settings, it could support informed consent in placebo-controlled trials.

Placebo effects and racial and ethnic health disparities: an unjust and underexplored connection

While a significant body of bioethical literature considers how the placebo effect might introduce a conflict between autonomy and beneficence, the link between justice and the placebo effect has been neglected. Here, we bring together disparate evidence from the field of placebo studies and research on health inequalities related to race and ethnicity, and argue that, collectively, this evidence may provide the basis for an unacknowledged route by which health disparities are exacerbated. This route is constituted by an uneven distribution of placebo effects, resulting from differences in expressions of physician warmth and empathy, as well as support and patient engagement, across racial and ethnic lines. In a discussion of the ethical implications of this connection, we argue that this contribution to health disparities is a source of injustice, consider ways in which these disparities might be ameliorated and suggest that this conclusion is likely to extend to other realms of inequality as well.

Consensus statement for non-hormonal-based treatments for menopausal symptoms

Since the June 2014 consensus statement published in Post Reproductive Health we have had definitive guidelines on menopause treatment from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in November 2015. These included robust and evidence based information about many non-estrogen based treatments, which are particularly useful for patients who do not wish to take hormone replacement therapy, or who have medical contraindications to hormonal therapy such as hormone dependent cancers. Whilst none of these therapies is as effective as hormones, we must be able to advise patients about them and recommend which treatments may be helpful for individual women.

Effect of clinical response to active drugs and placebo on antipsychotics and mood stabilizers relative efficacy for bipolar depression and mania: A meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

Randomised placebo-controlled trials investigating treatments for bipolar disorder have been hampered by wide variations of active drugs and placebo clinical response rates. It is important to estimate whether the active drug or placebo response has a greater influence in determining the relative efficacy of drugs for psychosis (antipsychotics) and relapse prevention (mood stabilisers) for bipolar depression and mania.

METHODS

We identified 53 randomised, placebo-controlled trials assessing antipsychotic or mood stabiliser monotherapy ('active drugs') for bipolar depression or mania. We carried out random-effects meta-regressions, estimating the influence of active drugs and placebo response rates on treatment relative efficacy.

RESULTS

Meta-regressions showed that treatment relative efficacy for bipolar mania was influenced by the magnitude of clinical response to active drugs ( p=0.002), but not to placebo ( p=0.60). On the other hand, treatment relative efficacy for bipolar depression was influenced by response to placebo ( p=0.047), but not to active drugs ( p=0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite several limitations, our unexpected findings showed that antipsychotics / mood stabilisers relative efficacy for bipolar depression seems unrelated to active drugs response rates, depending only on clinical response to placebo. Future research should explore strategies to reduce placebo-related issues in randomised, placebo-controlled trials for bipolar depression.

Why do open-label placebos work? A randomized controlled trial of an open-label placebo induction with and without extended information about the placebo effect in allergic rhinitis

Background

Several studies demonstrated that placebo treatment may have a significant impact on many different symptoms. While in the traditional view concealment of the placebo is essential, recent studies report intriguing evidence that placebos may work even without deception. For example, it has been demonstrated that open-label placebos can improve symptoms in allergic rhinitis. However, the mechanisms of how placebos without concealment work remain unknown.

Trial design

In order to examine expectancy effects we conducted a randomized controlled trial (N = 46), in which patients with allergic symptoms received either placebos without deception or no pills at all. In half of those patients we induced positive expectations about the placebo effect. After two weeks we tested whether symptoms and quality of life had changed.

Results

Results revealed that open-label placebos improved allergic symptoms more than the control group. Inducing positive expectations had no effects on the improvement of allergic symptoms (the primary and more objective outcome), but on mental sum scores of the quality of life questionnaire.

Conclusions

Placebos without deception can improve symptoms in allergic rhinitis. Positive expectations do not contribute to the efficacy of open-label placebos, but seem to have an effect on more global and subjective well-being (mental or emotional quality of life).

Clinical trial registration number

German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00012303

Open-Label Placebo Treatment for Cancer-Related Fatigue: A Randomized-Controlled Clinical Trial

The purpose of this 21-day assessor blinded, randomized-controlled trial was to compare an open-label placebo (OLP) to treatment as usual (TAU) for cancer survivors with fatigue. This was followed by an exploratory 21-day study in which TAU participants received OLPs while OLP participants in the main study were followed after discontinuing placebos. Cancer survivors (N = 74) who completed cancer treatment 6 months to 10 years prior to enrollment reporting at least moderate fatigue (i.e., ≥4 on a 0-10 scale) were randomized to OLP or TAU. Those randomized to OLP took 2 placebo pills twice a day for 21 days. Compared to those randomized to TAU, OLP participants reported a 29% improvement in fatigue severity (average difference in the mean change scores (MD) 12.47, 95% CI 3.32, 21.61; P = 0.008), medium effect (d = 0.63), and a 39% improvement in fatigue-disrupted quality of life (MD = 11.76, 95% CI 4.65, 18.86; P = 0.002), a large effect (d = 0.76). TAU participants who elected to try OLP for 21-days after the main study reported reductions in fatigue of a similar magnitude for fatigue severity and fatigue-disrupted quality of life (23% and 35%, respectively). OLP may reduce fatigue symptom severity and fatigue-related quality of life disruption in cancer survivors.

What trial participants need to be told about placebo effects to give informed consent: a survey to establish existing knowledge among patients with back pain

INTRODUCTION

Patients require an accurate knowledge about placebos and their possible effects to ensure consent for placebo-controlled clinical trials is adequately informed. However, few previous studies have explored patients' baseline (ie, pretrial recruitment) levels of understanding and knowledge about placebos. The present online survey aimed to assess knowledge about placebos among patients with a history of back pain.

DESIGN

A 15-item questionnaire was constructed to measure knowledge about placebos. Additional questions assessed sociodemographic characteristics, duration and severity of back pain, and previous experience of receiving placebos.

SETTING

Participants recruited from community settings completed the study online.

RESULTS

210 participants completed the questionnaire. 86.7% had back pain in the past 6 months, 44.3% currently had back pain. 4.3% had received a placebo intervention as part of a clinical trial and 68.1% had previously read or heard information about placebos. Overall knowledge of placebos was high, with participants on average answering 12.07 of 15 questions about placebos correctly (SD=2.35). However, few participants correctly answered questions about the nocebo effect (31.9% correct) and the impact of the colour of a placebo pill (55.2% correct).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings identified key gaps in knowledge about placebos. The lack of understanding of the nocebo effect in particular has implications for the informed consent of trial participants. Research ethics committees and investigators should prioritise amending informed consent procedures to incorporate the fact that participants in the placebo arm might experience adverse side effects.

Open-label versus double-blind placebo treatment in irritable bowel syndrome: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Placebo medications, by definition, are composed of inactive ingredients that have no physiological effect on symptoms. Nonetheless, administration of placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and in clinical settings has been demonstrated to have significant impact on many physical and psychological complaints. Until recently, conventional wisdom has suggested that patients must believe that placebo pills actually contain (or, at least, might possibly contain) active medication in order to elicit a response to placebo. However, several recent RCTs, including patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), chronic low back pain, and episodic migraine, have demonstrated that individuals receiving open-label placebo (OLP) can still experience symptomatic improvement and benefit from honestly described placebo treatment.

METHODS AND DESIGN

This paper describes an innovative multidisciplinary trial design (n = 280) that attempts to replicate and expand upon an earlier IBS OLP study. The current study will compare OLP to double-blind placebo (DBP) administration which is made possible by including a nested, double-blind RCT comparing DBP and peppermint oil. The study also examines possible genetic and psychological predictors of OLP and seeks to better understand participants' experiences with OLP and DBP through a series of extensive interviews with a randomly selected subgroup.

DISCUSSION

OLP treatment is a novel strategy for ethically harnessing placebo effects. It has potential to re-frame theories of placebo and to influence how physicians can optimize watch-and-wait strategies for common, subjective symptoms. The current study aims to dramatically expand what we know about OLP by comparing, for the first time, OLP and DBP administration. Adopting a unique, multidisciplinary approach, the study also explores genetic, psychological and experiential dimensions of OLP. The paper ends with an extensive discussion of the "culture" of the trial as well as potential mechanisms of OLP and ethical implications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02802241 . Registered on 14 June 2016.