Open-label placebo clinical trials: is it the rationale, the interaction or the pill?

Effects of Open-Label Placebos on Visual Food Cue Reactivity in Children and Adolescents

BACKGROUND

A high level of food cue reactivity (FCR) is a risk factor for overeating and weight gain. This randomized trial investigated whether open-label placebos (OLPs: placebos honestly administered) can reduce FCR (reported appetite) in children and adolescents.

METHOD

Children (n = 73; 8-12 years old) and adolescents (n = 187; 16-18 years old) were randomly assigned to either an OLP group or a control group (without OLP). Participants viewed images depicting food (sweets and fruits) and non-food items. Before viewing, the OLP group received a placebo for appetite reduction. Participants rated their desire to eat the depicted food items (0-100) and the perceived effectiveness of the OLP intervention.

RESULTS

The OLP exhibited a large effect in children, leading to a general reduction in appetite (group difference OLP vs. no OLP: M = -20.8; ηp2 = 0.20). This general effect was absent in adolescents, whose appetite reduction was restricted to fruits (OLP vs. no OLP: M = -8.1; ηp2 = 0.03). Additionally, children perceived the OLP as more effective than adolescents.

CONCLUSION

The reduced response and skeptical attitudes of adolescents towards OLP treatment require further investigation.

Preserving the placebo effect after disclosure: A new perspective on non-deceptive placebos

The present study explores whether a particular style of placebo disclosure could serve as a tool to foster a renewed trust in one's own inherent resources and elicit a meaningful placebo effect. In a motor performance task, two placebo groups received inert transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in each of four sessions along with information on its force-enhancing properties. Before the final session, one of the placebo groups was informed about the placebo, which was portrayed as a means to unleash an inherent potential. Along with force, we systematically monitored task-specific self-efficacy to test whether this variable would be differentially modulated in the two placebo groups. Compared to two control groups, placebo groups showed higher force and self-efficacy in the last session. No differences in self-efficacy were observed in the placebo groups even after revealing the placebo procedure, suggesting that the disclosure was effective in 'safeguarding' individuals' self-efficacy. These findings may have important implications, paving the way for the use of placebos that not only are ethically permissible but also support individuals' self-efficacy.

Can observational learning reinforce open-label placebo hypoalgesia?

ABSTRACT

Previous research has indicated that an open-label placebo can reduce pain in both healthy participants and patients with chronic pain. Because nondeceptive placebos seem to be an effective and more ethical alternative to deceptive placebos, optimizing this kind of treatment is essential. Observational learning was previously shown to induce the deceptive placebo effect; therefore, this study aimed to verify its effectiveness in fortifying the open-label placebo effect. Healthy volunteers (N = 117) were randomly assigned to 4 groups: open-label placebo with observational learning (OLP + OBL), open-label placebo (OLP), deceptive placebo with observational learning (OBL), or control group. Participants underwent baseline and testing measurements, during which they self-reported pain induced by heat stimulation. Between assessments, placebo cream was openly administered in the OLP and OLP + OBL groups. The OLP + OBL group next watched a model experiencing hypoalgesia after cream application. In the OBL group, participants received placebo cream with no information about its effect, and then they watched the model. The placebo effect was successfully evoked in all experimental groups (OLP + OBL, OLP, and OBL), which confirms the effectiveness of both open-label and deceptive placebo interventions for pain reduction. However, the hypoalgesic effect was of similar magnitude in the OLP and OLP + OBL groups, which indicates that observation did not contribute to the effect. The results showed that reinforcing the open-label placebo by observational learning may be redundant, but more research is needed to confirm these findings.

Reducing Emotional Distress with Open-Label Placebos: Assessing the Role of Motor Engagement in Pill Consumption

It has been posited that ingesting a pill constitutes a pivotal action that facilitates the effects of open-label placebos (OLPs: placebos honestly prescribed). In the present OLP experiment, the motor components of a placebo treatment were systematically varied. The participants (n = 183) were randomly allocated to one of four groups that all viewed aversive pictures. The 'active OLP' group took a placebo pill with specific instructions concerning the sequence of motor actions for the intake. The 'usual OLP' group swallowed the pill (without specific motor instructions), while the third group received an 'imaginary OLP' (no pill intake). The fourth group applied cognitive reappraisal (CR; active control group) to reduce emotional distress. The participants rated their affective state as well as the efficacy and plausibility of the treatment approach. Moreover, blood pressure and pulse were recorded as indicators of bodily arousal. The four groups did not differ in their valence ratings and physiological measures. The 'imaginary OLP' received higher ratings for both effectiveness and plausibility than the 'usual OLP'. CR was rated as superior relative to all OLP conditions. In conclusion, reducing emotional distress with OLPs does not necessitate the consumption of a placebo pill. In terms of acceptability and ease of implementation, CR stands as a well-established alternative.

Effects of (non)deceptive placebos on reported sleep quality and food cue reactivity

A lack of sleep can increase appetite, particularly for high-calorie food. The current study tested the effects of an open-label placebo for improving sleep quality and reducing food cue reactivity. In open-label placebo interventions, placebo recipients are informed that they are receiving a placebo without a pharmacologically active substance. Participants (n = 150) were randomly allocated to one of three groups that received either an open-label placebo to improve sleep quality, a deceptive placebo ("melatonin"), or no placebo. The placebo was administered daily before bedtime for 1 week. Sleep quality and reactivity to high-calorie food cues (appetite, visual attention to food images) were assessed. The deceptive placebo (but not the open-label placebo) reduced reported sleep-onset latency. The open-label placebo decreased perceived sleep efficiency. The placebo interventions did not change food cue reactivity. This study demonstrated that open-label placebos do not present an alternative to deceptive placebos for improving sleep quality. The undesirable open-label placebo effects found warrant further exploration.

If only they knew! A non-inferiority randomized controlled trial comparing deceptive and open-label placebo in healthy individuals

BACKGROUND

Placebo use is widespread in clinical practice. However, they are most often administered deceptively rather than openly. It is often suggested that open-label placebos (OLP) are less effective than deceptive placebos (DP). This study aimed to compare the use of DP and OLP treatments to reduce pain in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

We conducted a non-inferiority, parallel, randomized, controlled trial, which also included a nested cross-over no-treatment condition. This study was conducted at a university clinic in France.

RESULTS

We included 60 subjects and the main result shows that the OLP was not inferior to the DP by a margin of 10 mm. The mean difference between both groups regarding intensity of pain was 0.7 mm with a 95% compatibility interval (95% CI) of ]-∞; 5.4], and 97.5% CI of ]-∞; 6.3]. Secondary outcomes require cautious interpretation of the effect of placebo versus no treatment due to a time-treatment interaction.

CONCLUSION

The study indicates that OLP may perform just as well as DP and could provide support for the use of OLP as an ethical alternative to DP when they are to be used in a clinical setting. If only patients knew about the placebo nature of some treatments they are receiving, unnecessary lies could be avoided while maintaining similar placebo effects.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study is the first to show non-inferiority of placebos administered honestly, also called OLP, compared to DP in reducing pain. This suggests that OLP could be as effective as their deceptive counterparts while having the ethical advantage of not being required to lie. If deception is not a necessary condition for efficacy, OLP should be preferred over DP.

An assessment of the reporting of tapering methods in antidepressant discontinuation trials using the TIDieR checklist

BACKGROUND

The importance of tapering is increasingly recognised when discontinuing antidepressant medication. However, no previous studies have examined the reporting of antidepressant tapering methods in published studies.

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess the completeness of reporting of antidepressant tapering methods in a published systematic review using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist.

METHOD

A secondary analysis was conducted of studies included in a Cochrane systematic review that examined the effectiveness of approaches for discontinuing long-term antidepressant use. The completeness of reporting of antidepressant tapering methods in included studies was independently assessed by two researchers using the 12 items from the TIDieR checklist.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included in the analysis. None of the study reports described all checklists items. No study clearly reported what materials had been provided (item 3) or whether tailoring had occurred (item 9). With the exception of providing a name for the intervention or study procedures (item 1), only a minority of studies clearly reported on any of the remaining checklist items.

CONCLUSION

The findings highlight a lack of detailed reporting of antidepressant tapering methods in published trials to date. This needs to be addressed as poor reporting could hinder replication and adaptation of existing interventions, as well as the potential for successful translation of effective tapering interventions into clinical practice.

Replication crisis and placebo studies: rebooting the bioethical debate

A growing body of cross-cultural survey research shows high percentages of clinicians report using placebos in clinical settings. One motivation for clinicians using placebos is to help patients by capitalising on the placebo effect's reported health benefits. This is not surprising, given that placebo studies are burgeoning, with increasing calls by researchers to ethically harness placebo effects among patients. These calls propose placebos/placebo effects offer clinically significant benefits to patients. In this paper, we argue many findings in this highly cited and 'hot' field have not been independently replicated. Evaluating the ethicality of placebo use in clinical practice involves first understanding whether placebos are efficacious clinically. Therefore, it is crucial to consider placebo research in the context of the replication crisis and what can be learnt to advance evidence-based knowledge of placebos/placebo effects and their clinical relevance (or lack thereof). In doing so, our goal in this paper is to motivate both increased awareness of replication issues and to help pave the way for advances in scientific research in the field of placebo studies to better inform ethical evidence-based practice. We argue that, only by developing a rigorous evidence base can we better understand how, if at all, placebos/placebo effects can be harnessed ethically in clinical settings.

A qualitative study of imaginary pills and open-label placebos in test anxiety

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of open-label placebos (OLPs) has been increasingly demonstrated and their use holds promise for applications compatible with basic ethical principles. Taking this concept one step further an imaginary pill (IP) intervention without the use of a physical pill was developed and tested in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). To explore participants' experiences and views, we conducted the first qualitative study in the field of IPs.

METHODS

A reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) of semi-structured interviews with test anxious students (N = 20) was nested in an RCT investigating an IP and OLP intervention. In addition, open-ended questions from the RCT were evaluated (N = 114) to corroborate the RTA and pill characteristics were included to more accurately capture the IP experience.

RESULTS

Four key themes were identified: (1) attitude towards the intervention, (2) applicability of the intervention, (3) experience of effects, and (4) characteristics of the imagination. The IP intervention was well-accepted, easily applicable, and various effects, pill characteristics and appearances were described. While many participants did not desire a physical pill, either due to the absence of the imagination component or aversion to pills, the approach was considered to be cognitively and time demanding, which in turn, however, encouraged the establishment of a therapeutic ritual that protected against the increase in test anxiety during the preparation phase. OLP findings were comparable, and especially the importance of a treatment rationale was stressed in both groups, counteracting an initial ambivalent attitude. The RTA findings were supported by the open-ended questions of the RCT.

CONCLUSION

IPs appear to be a well-accepted and easily applicable intervention producing a variety of beneficial effects. Thus, the IP approach might serve as an imaginary based alternative to OLPs warranting further investigations on its application to harness placebo effects without a physical pill.

The roles of expectation, comparator, administration route, and population in open-label placebo effects: a network meta-analysis

Three meta-analyses have demonstrated the clinical potential of open-label placebos (OLPs). However, there is a need to synthesize the existing evidence through more complex analyses that would make it possible to answer questions beyond mere efficacy. Such analyses would serve to improve the understanding of why and under what circumstances OLPs work (e.g., depending on induced expectations or across different control groups). To answer these questions, we conducted the first network meta-analyses in the field of OLPs. Our analyses revealed that OLPs could be beneficial in comparison to no treatment in nonclinical (12 trials; 1015 participants) and clinical populations (25 trials; 2006 participants). Positive treatment expectations were found to be important for OLPs to work. Also, OLP effects can vary depending on the comparator used. While the kind of administration route had no substantial impact on the OLP effects, effects were found to be larger in clinical populations than in nonclinical populations. These results suggest that the expectation, comparator, administration route, and population should be considered when designing and interpreting OLP studies.

Blinding and sham control methods in trials of physical, psychological, and self-management interventions for pain (article II): a meta-analysis relating methods to trial results

ABSTRACT

Sham interventions in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of physical, psychological, and self-management (PPS) therapies for pain are highly variable in design and believed to contribute to poor internal validity. However, it has not been formally tested whether the extent to which sham controls resemble the treatment under investigation consistently affects trial outcomes, such as effect sizes, differential attrition, participant expectancy, and blinding effectiveness. Placebo- or sham-controlled RCTs of PPS interventions of clinical pain populations were searched in 12 databases. The similarity of control interventions to the experimental treatment was rated across 25 features. Meta-regression analyses assessed putative links between employed control interventions, observed effect sizes in pain-related outcomes, attrition, and blinding success. The sample included 198 unique control interventions, dominated by manual therapy and chronic musculoskeletal pain research. Meta-analyses indicated small-to-moderate benefits of active treatments over control interventions, across subgroups of manual therapies, exercise, and rehabilitation, and psychological intervention trials. Multiple meta-regression modelling demonstrated that similarity between sham control and tested interventions predicted variability in pain-related outcomes, attrition, and blinding effectiveness. Influential variables were differences relating to the extent of intervention exposure, participant experience, and treatment environments. The results support the supposed link between blinding methods and effect sizes, based on a large and systematically sourced overview of methods. However, challenges to effective blinding are complex and often difficult to discern from trial reports. Nonetheless, these insights have the potential to change trial design, conduct, and reporting and will inform guideline development.

Irving Kirsch opens a window on antidepressant medications

When it comes to antidepressant medications - popular, backbone drugs of modern psychiatry - even learned scholars and savvy clinicians find it difficult to separate honest, rigorous research from that which thrives on hidden agendas and ulterior motives. Fortunately, a mounting corpus of data-based studies, mostly meta-analyses, casts new and critical light on the clinical efficacy, side effects, and therapeutic outcomes of antidepressants. Spearheading these efforts over the past few decades, Irving Kirsch and colleagues have challenged the hegemonic view of antidepressants as an effective therapeutic intervention. Notably, Kirsch illuminates the small difference between antidepressants and placebos in mitigating depression-a difference that may be statistically significant yet fails to reach clinical significance. This piece sketches the important contributions Kirsch has made to the scientific understanding of antidepressant medications.

Open-Label Placebo Effects on Psychological and Physical Well-Being: A Conceptual Replication Study

Background

Contrary to traditional placebos, open-label placebos (OLP) abstain from deception, i.e., participants are openly informed to receive an inert substance. Studies in clinical and healthy samples evidence the efficacy of OLPs. This study aims to conceptually replicate and expand findings of a recent OLP study in healthy participants while implementing a within-subject design and daily instead of retrospective assessments. Additionally, the effect of a brand name on the medicine container is tested and possible predictors of the OLP effects are explored.

Method

Healthy participants (N = 75) received OLP and no placebo for 5 days each (randomized sequence) and answered daily questionnaires on sleep quality, bodily symptoms, mental well-being, and psychological distress. The medicine container of half the participants had a brand name, the remaining did not. Different personality traits and situational factors were assessed.

Results

Mental and physical well-being did not differ between OLP and control phase, i.e., overall, no OLP effect emerged. Contrast analysis indicated that an OLP effect emerged for sleep quality and psychological distress when no brand name was present. Further, an OLP effect emerged in persons with higher expectations for bodily symptoms (r = .23, p = .046) and psychological distress (r = .24, p = .037).

Conclusions

Methodological differences to the original study are discussed as an explanation for the failure to induce overall OLP effects. Future studies should continue to replicate previous findings and determine the exact conditions of successful implementation of OLP effects in healthy as well as clinical samples.

‘It's not my greengrocer, it's someone from the medical profession’: A qualitative study regarding acceptability of deceptive and open‐label placebo prescribing in France

OBJECTIVES

To explore participants' views regarding clinical use of deceptive placebo (DP) and open-label placebo (OLP) treatments.

DESIGN

Qualitative thematic analysis.

METHODS

We conducted eight semi-structured interviews with healthy participants in an experimental trial comparing the efficacy of OLP and DP (Clinical trials n°NCT03934138). Interviewees' opinions were solicited following administration of placebos during the trial. Interviews were analysed using data-driven analysis.

RESULTS

We identified three themes. First, participants considered trust central in judging a placebo treatment to be acceptable. They expressed the importance of an implicit trust both in their health care professionals' (HCPs') competency as well as in the profession at large. A second theme was the perception of how placebo treatments might solve health problems. Acceptability of both types of placebo treatments was dependent on the perception patients had about the treatment solving their problem and/or doubts regarding the effectiveness of placebos The third theme encompassed perceived risks associated with placebo prescribing. Some comments viewed placebos positively as facilitating reduced medication intake. However, participants also identified the potential of placebos to generate adverse side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment acceptability by patients is a pre-requisite, alongside effectiveness, to harness OLPs in clinical care. Our study identified the importance of trust in HCPs prescribing placebos, the clinical effectiveness of placebos and the potential risks of these interventions in assessing their acceptability. Future research is needed to explore the contexts in which placebos might be used, and how best to communicate information about placebo interventions.

Open-label placebos as adjunctive therapy for patients with depression

Background

Placebos prescribed as 'regular' medication can reduce symptoms of depression. However, using a placebo without patients' informed consent presents ethical issues. Therefore, the present study assessed the efficacy of an open-label placebo (OLP), which was administered concurrently with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).

Methods

Sixty patients (mean age: 48 years) diagnosed with major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to a 4-week CBT outpatient program with or without daily OLP treatment. The patients were assessed directly before and after the program as well as three months after the therapy.

Results

Compared to the CBT group, the CBT + OLP group showed a greater reduction in symptoms of depression at the end of the program. Changes in categories pertaining to severity of depression did not differ between groups. All patients completed the program. Noncompliance with the follow-up appointment differed significantly between CBT + OLP (27%) and CBT (7%). Noncompliance was associated with a negative evaluation of the OLP.

Conclusions

The OLP intervention reduced symptoms of depression, however, these changes were not clinically meaningful. The OLP increased the risk for loss to follow-up. The high dropout rate in the present study raises questions concerning the acceptance of OLPs in the treatment of depression.

No open-label placebo effect in insomnia? Lessons learned from an experimental trial

BACKGROUND

Open-label placebo (OLP) treatment seems to be effective in several medical conditions but has not yet been investigated in insomnia. Furthermore, it needs to be evaluated whether providing a plausible treatment rationale is essential to obtain OLP effects.

METHODS

In two consecutive nights, the sleep of patients with primary insomnia (n = 45) was assessed via subjective and objective measures. Before the second night, they received a single OLP pill that was randomly provided either with a treatment rationale (OLP+) or without (OLP-). When (M)ANOVAs did not reveal differential effects between the two OLP groups, the OLP+ group was compared post-hoc to a formerly assessed no pill control sample (NPC; n = 23).

RESULTS

Neither the MANOVAs nor the ANOVAs revealed significant interaction effects of treatment group and assessment night. The OLP+ condition was superior neither to OLP- nor to NPC in improving the patients' sleep.

DISCUSSION

Our findings do neither confirm the general efficacy of OLP in primary insomnia nor differential effects depending on the treatment rationale. Possible explanations lie in the dosing scheme (i.e., single OLP application), the provision of the OLP rationale by video and the experimental instead of therapeutic character of our investigation. Trials with larger samples and longer-term OLP treatment in insomnia are needed. Providing the rationale face-to-face and in a clinical setting might be additionally beneficial.

Open-Label Placebo Treatment for Experimental Pain: A Randomized-Controlled Trial with Placebo Acupuncture and Placebo Pills

Objective: An open-label placebo (OLP) is a placebo treatment in which the patient is aware that the treatment is a placebo. OLPs are considered effective for reducing pain, and previous studies have shown a stronger placebo effect for placebo acupuncture than for placebo pills. In this study, the authors compared the analgesic effects of OLP pills, OLP acupuncture, and a no treatment condition in healthy participants, and then examined the factors contributing to the OLP effect. Design: Randomized controlled crossover trial. Settings/Location: College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Subjects: 34 healthy participants. Intervention: Participants received three different treatments ("OLP-pill," "OLP-acupuncture," and "no treatment") on three separate days in random order. Outcome Measurements: Before and after the treatment, heat pain stimuli were applied to the participants' hands, and pain tolerance, intensity, and unpleasantness were measured using a visual analog scale (range, 0-10). Results: Data of 31 participants were included in the analysis. The authors found significant analgesic effects of the placebo pill and placebo acupuncture in the OLP condition. Regression analyses revealed that expectations regarding treatment and practitioner identity influenced the analgesic effects of OLP acupuncture. There was no adverse event. Conclusions: Expectations regarding treatment and practitioner identity influenced the analgesic effect of placebo acupuncture without deception. These findings provide new information regarding the cognitive factors underlying pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments. Clinical Trial Registration Number: KCT0004928.

How orthopedic surgeons view open label placebo pills: Ethical and effective, but opposed to personal use

OBJECTIVE

To examine attitudes of Open Label Placebos (OLP) among a national sample of US orthopedic surgeons.

METHODS

Orthopedic surgeons across the US were invited to participate in a brief online cross-sectional survey; n = 687 participated. The survey included a short vignette of a surgeon using adjunctive OLPs in addition to opioids for postoperative pain management. Participants indicated how ethical and effective they thought OLPs would be in this context, and whether they would personally consider using OLPs.

RESULTS

Nearly three-quarters (73.9%) of the surgeons considered OLPs ethical. In total, 55.4% and 48.8% of participants said that OLPs would "probably" or "definitely" be effective for Vicodin reduction and pain relief, respectively. However, only 19.2% of participants indicated they were personally willing to consider OLPs, and 59.6% were unwilling to do so.

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, orthopedic surgeons perceive OLPs as both ethical and effective, but would not consider using them in their practice. Further research is needed to identify clinician barriers to OLP use.

Exercise and education versus saline injections for knee osteoarthritis: a randomised controlled equivalence trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of an exercise and education programme with open-label placebo given as intra-articular injections of inert saline on pain and function in individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

In this open-label, randomised controlled trial, we recruited adults aged ≥50 years with symptomatic and radiographically confirmed knee OA in Denmark. Participants were randomised 1:1 to undergo an 8-week exercise and education programme or four intra-articular saline injections over 8 weeks. Primary outcome was change from baseline to week 9 in the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaire pain subscale (range 0 (worst)-100 (best)). Prespecified equivalence margins of ±8 KOOS pain points were chosen for the demonstration of comparable efficacy. Key secondary outcomes were the KOOS function and quality of life subscales, and patients' global assessment of disease impact.

RESULTS

206 adults were randomly assigned: 102 to exercise and education and 104 to intra-articular saline injections. For the primary outcome, the least squares mean changes in KOOS pain were 10.0 for exercise and education and 7.3 for saline injections (difference 2.7 points, 95% CI -0.6 to 6.0; test for equivalence p=0.0008). All group differences in the key secondary outcomes respected the predefined equivalence margins. Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In individuals with knee OA, an 8-week exercise and education programme provided efficacy for symptomatic and functional improvements equivalent to that of four open-label intra-articular saline injections over 8 weeks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03843931.

Lay perspectives of the open-label placebo rationale: a qualitative study of participants in an experimental trial

OBJECTIVES

To analyse participants' concepts about the open-label placebo (OLP) effect; to explore their views about the discussion points that are applied in conventional OLP trials and to examine their experiences of taking part in an OLP trial.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using thematic analysis of semistructured interviews that were nested within a randomised controlled trial investigating experimental OLP analgesia (registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02578420).

PARTICIPANTS

30 healthy adults who took part in the randomised controlled trial.

RESULTS

Participants mostly conceptualised placebo as something that is inert and requires deception in order to be effective. Interviewees used a broad definition of placebos, going beyond a conventional notion of sugar pills. In contrast to the conventional OLP rationale, participants seldom emphasised classical conditioning as a mechanism of placebo effects, stressing a variety of other well-established components through which placebos might be therapeutic, whereas the conventional OLP disclosures state that 'a positive attitude helps but is not necessary', participants in our study applied other attitudes, such as 'it's worth a try'. When asked about their experiences during the trial, the majority emphasised that the concept of OLP was completely novel to them. Participants were rather sceptical about the efficacy of the intervention.

CONCLUSION

Integrating lay perspectives into the scientific rationale of OLP treatments might enhance the plausibility and credibility of the rationale in ethical treatments.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02578420.

Open-label placebo treatment to improve relaxation training effects in healthy psychology students: a randomized controlled trial

Placebos, that are administered with deception, can reduce stress and increase relaxation. The present study investigated an open-label placebo (OLP) to improve the effects of Progressive Muscle Relaxation (PMR) training. A total of 160 psychology students were randomly assigned to a 14-day PMR course with or without daily OLP treatment. The placebo was administered along with an explanation of placebo effects and the verbal suggestion that the OLP activates the body’s natural relaxation response. The relaxation instructions for home practice were delivered via a smartphone app, which was also used for the evaluation of the exercises. The participants of the OLP group completed more PMR exercises (M = 9.75) than the group without a placebo (M = 8.15). The two groups did not differ in reported exercise-related changes in relaxation level. On average, the OLP group rated the effects of the placebo as very low and was characterized by a higher drop-out rate compared to the group without OLP. Some participants experienced the OLP as negative. In conclusion, factors that influence the acceptance of OLP treatment require further investigation.

Treating Pain With Open-Label Placebos: A Qualitative Study With Post-Surgical Pain Patients

Prior research has shown that Open Label Placebos (OLPs; that is, placebos described honestly as inactive pills) are effective for a variety of clinical conditions, including pain. However, little is known about patient attitudes towards OLPs. We conducted qualitative interviews with n = 11 patients (73% female) who recently had hand or wrist surgery and took ≥ 1 opioid pill. Interview topics included: pain management, the placebo effect, and in particular, attitudes towards OLPs. Interviews were analyzed inductively and content-coded. Five themes were identified: 1) Role of the mind in pain and illness, 2) Shortcomings of opioids are the strengths of OLPs, 3) Perceptions of OLP effectiveness, 4) Relational aspects of OLP administration, and 5) Practical considerations for OLP implementation. Most patients agreed that, because of their transparency, OLPs are ethical. Participants indicated some degree of reluctance about using OLPs, but the majority said they would take OLPs if prescribed by a doctor. Patients noted that the primary disadvantage of opioids is their potency, which can lead to addiction or side-effects; by contrast, the primary advantage of placebos is their inertness. Results suggest that OLPs appear to be well received as a postoperative pain treatment among the patients in this study. PERSPECTIVE: This qualitative study examines how hand surgery patients view OLPs, which are placebos described honestly as inactive pills. OLPs were generally well received by patients as a treatment for pain after surgery and could be considered as an adjunctive treatment to potentially reduce reliance on prescription opioids.

Providing open-label placebos remotely-A randomized controlled trial in allergic rhinitis

Background

Placebos can reduce physical symptoms even when provided with full honesty and disclosure. Yet, the precise mechanisms underlying the effects of “open-label placebos” (OLPs) have remained subject of debate. Furthermore, it is unclear whether OLPs are similarly effective when provided remotely, as is sometimes required e.g. in the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

In a randomized-controlled trial, we examined the effects of OLP plus treatment as usual (TAU) compared to TAU alone on symptom reduction in people with allergic rhinitis (N = 54) over the course of two weeks. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, OLP was provided remotely (i.e. sent via postal service). To investigate the potential influence of the clinical encounter on the effects of OLP, we manipulated the perception of the virtual clinical encounter, both with respect to verbal and nonverbal factors (augmented vs. limited encounter).

Results

The results of the manipulation check confirmed that the augmented clinical encounter was evaluated more positively than the limited encounter, in terms of perceived warmth of the provider. Participants from all treatment groups showed significant symptom reduction from baseline to two weeks later, but OLP had no incremental effect over TAU. Participants benefitted more from OLP when they did not take any other medication against allergic symptoms than when taking medication on demand. When controlling for baseline symptoms, a significant treatment by encounter interaction was found, pointing to greater symptom improvement in the OLP group when the encounter was augmented, whereas the control group improved more when the encounter was limited.

Discussion

The study demonstrates that providing OLP and enhancing the encounter remotely is possible, but their effectiveness might be lower in comparison to previous studies relying on physical patient-provider interaction. The study raises questions for future research about the potential and challenges of remote placebo studies and virtual clinical encounters. The study has been registered as a clinical trial at ISRCTN (record number: 39018).

Open-label placebo for insomnia (OPIN): study protocol for a cohort multiple randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Insomnia is a prevalent sleep disorder that causes substantial personal and societal harm. There is evidence that placebo interventions can reduce insomnia symptoms, but this research has involved deceptively administering the placebo under the guise of a real medication (conventional placebo, CP), which has obvious ethical constraints. Open-label placebo (OLP) treatment, in which a placebo is administered with full disclosure that there are no active ingredients, has been proposed as a method of using the placebo effect ethically, but the efficacy and acceptability of OLP for insomnia is currently unknown.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study uses a cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design to compare OLP, CP and no treatment for insomnia. Two-hundred and sixty-seven participants with self-reported insomnia symptoms (Insomnia Severity Index, ISI ≥10) will be recruited into an observational study and have their sleep monitored over a 2-week period. Participants will then be randomised to one of three groups: invite to OLP, invite to CP described deceptively as a new pharmacological agent, or no invite/observational control. Those in OLP and CP accepting the invite receive identical placebos for a 2-week treatment period while sleep is monitored in all participants. The primary outcome is ISI at the end of the treatment period. Secondary outcomes include treatment uptake and clinically significant response rates, objective and subjective sleep parameters, fatigue, mood, expectancy, treatment satisfaction and side effects. Predictors of uptake and responses to OLP and CP will be explored.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial has been approved by The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee. Written informed consent is obtained from every participant. OLP and CP participants accepting the invite undergo an additional consent process. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed conference proceedings and publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12620001080910.

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.

Effects of open-label placebos on test performance and psychological well-being in healthy medical students: a randomized controlled trial

Psychological distress is prevalent in students and can predispose to psychiatric disorders. Recent findings indicate that distress might be linked to impaired cognitive performance in students. Experimental findings in healthy participants suggest that placebo interventions can improve cognition. However, whether non-deceptive (i.e., open-label, OLP) placebos can enhance cognitive function and emotional well-being is unclear. Using a randomized-controlled design we demonstrate a positive impact of OLP on subjective well-being (i.e., stress, fatigue, and confusion) after a 21-day OLP application in healthy students during midterm exams. OLP did not improve test performance, but, within the OLP group, test performance was positively correlated with measures of general belief in the benefit of medication. These results show that OLP can counteract negative effects of acute stress on psychological well-being and might improve cognitive performance if supported by positive treatment expectations. Additionally, our findings in healthy volunteers warrant further investigation in exploring the potential of OLP in reducing stress-related psychological effects in patients. The trial was preregistered at the German Clinical Trials Register on December 20, 2017 (DRKS00013557).

Open-Label Placebo Trial among Japanese Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain

Background

The aim of this study was to confirm the effectiveness of open-label placebo (OLP) in Japanese patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), similar to previous reports, and to investigate its short- and medium-term effects in this study population.

Methods

Fifty-two patients with CLBP were randomized into a treatment as usual (TAU) group (n = 26) or an OLP + TAU group (n = 26) for 12 weeks. The TAU included advice to remain active and exercise in conjunction with recent psychological education based on a self-management strategy. In contrast, participants in the OLP + TAU group were instructed to take two OLP capsules a day. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and at weeks 3 and 12 using the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain intensity, and the Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG) test. Difference in outcomes between the two groups was compared at the two follow-up points.

Results

Although all participants completed the 3-week follow-up, four patients (two in each group) were lost to follow-up beyond week 3. There were no significant intergroup differences in changes in the RMDQ score (p=0.40), pain-NRS score (p=0.19), and TUG time (p=0.98) at week 3. Two-way repeated measure analyses of covariance showed significant time-course effects but did not show group effects or any interactions between the time-course and group in terms of the RMDQ score. However, it did not show any effects in the pain-NRS score and TUG time at week 12.

Conclusions

The OLP + TAU group showed no superior findings in comparison with the TAU group after 3 weeks and 12 weeks for Japanese patients with CLBP. Nonetheless, significant improvements in functional disability were observed in both groups.

Open-Label Placebo Treatment: Outcome Expectations and General Acceptance in the Lay Population

Background

Most physicians sometimes apply therapies without specific active ingredients. Although patients seem to judge such placebo treatments as acceptable under certain circumstances, deception is still an ethical problem. Open-label placebos (OLPs) might be a promising approach to solve this dilemma. This study compared general acceptance and outcome expectations of OLPs and deceptive placebos (DPs).

Methods

In an experimental online study, 814 participants read a case vignette of a person with insomnia receiving a pill. The participants were then randomly allocated into two groups, where the second part of the vignette described the pill as either a deceptive placebo (DP group) or as an open-label placebo (OLP group). The Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ) assessed outcome expectations after the first (pre-assessment) and the second (post-assessment) parts of the vignette. Treatment acceptance was measured at post-assessment. Data from 798 participants were analyzed by a mixed multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), t-tests, and post-hoc mediation analyses.

Results

The MANOVA revealed a significant group main effect and a significant time × group interaction effect. At post-assessment, outcome expectations were higher in the DP group than in the OLP group. Acceptance of the placebo treatment was also higher in the DP group than in the OLP group. Mediation analyses confirmed that higher acceptance in the DP group was mediated by higher expectations.

Conclusions

When laypersons read about placebo treatment, their outcome expectations toward DPs were higher than toward OLPs. Surprisingly, the application of DPs was rated as more acceptable than OLPs. This result might be explained by indirect effects of treatment expectations.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12529-020-09933-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Nocebo effects by providing informed consent in shared decision making? Not necessarily: a randomized pilot-trial using an open-label placebo approach

Background

Thorough information of the patient is an integral part of the process of shared decision making. We aimed to investigate if detailed information about medication may induce nocebo (or placebo) effects.

Methods

We conducted a randomized, single-blind, pilot-study including n = 51 psychiatric in-patients aged between 18 and 80 years with a depressive disorder and accompanying sleeping disorders. In the intervention group we provided thorough information about adverse effects, while the control group received only a simple consent procedure. In both groups, patients received an open-label placebo pill instead of their sleeping medication.

Results

No statistically significant differences between the intervention group and the control group were found regarding the main outcome parameter (a visual analogue scale indicating impairment by the new pill).

Conclusion

In this study, we were not able detect an effect of informed consent vs. simple consent on the emergence of placebo or nocebo effects. This finding is contrary to most assumptions and publications about this topic.

Trial registration

Trial registration number: DRKS00017653, registered August 30th 2018. Retrosprectively registered.

[Appearances are not deceptive: clinical evidence and new research approaches to open-label placebo]

The efficacy of placebo effects is proven in experimental, clinical and meta-analytical studies. However, harnessing placebo effects in clinical treatment contexts is hampered legally and ethically, since it has been considered necessary to conceal the inert nature of a placebo application. Interestingly, the results of recently published small, randomized trials suggest that patients can experience symptom relief after taking pills that they know lack any medication. In particular, these so-called open-label placebos (OLP) improved strongly fluctuating and individually distressing complaints such as gastrointestinal, neurological, psychosomatic and pain symptoms. Although the mechanisms are largely unknown, the open-label placebo application might be a promising way of fostering placebo effects in clinical settings. Initial study protocols already provide schedules for OLP use as an additional treatment in opioid use disorders. Likewise, the reduction of side effects, conversion effects or withdrawal symptoms through OLP applications in pharmacologically active treatments appear to serve as appropriate therapy goals. Further mechanistic studies are urgently needed to investigate the thus far only hypothetically proposed underlying mechanisms of OLP.

Primary care providers' use of and attitudes towards placebos: An exploratory focus group study with US physicians

OBJECTIVE

To examine how primary care physicians define placebo concepts, use placebos in clinical practice, and view open-label placebos (OLPs).

DESIGN

Semi-structured focus groups that were audio-recorded and content-coded.

METHODS

Two focus groups with a total of 15 primary care physicians occurred at medical centres in the New England region of the United States. Prior experience using placebo treatments and attitudes towards open-label placebos were explored. Themes were analysed using an inductive data-driven approach.

RESULTS

Physicians displayed a nuanced understanding of placebos and placebo effects in clinical contexts which sometimes focused on relational factors. Some respondents reported that they prescribed treatments with no known pharmacological effect for certain conditions and symptoms ('impure placebos') and that such prescriptions were more common for pain disorders, functional disorders, and medically unexplained symptoms. Opinions about OLP were mixed: Some viewed OLPs favourably or considered them 'harmless'; however, others strongly rejected OLPs as disrespectful to patients. Other issues in relation to OLPs included the following: lack of guidelines, legal and reputational concerns, and the notion that such treatments would run counter to customary medical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of physicians reported prescribing impure placebos in clinical care. Although some primary care physicians were resistant to the possibility of recommending OLPs, others regarded OLPs more favourably, viewing them as potential treatments, albeit with restricted potential. Statement of contribution What is already known? Many physicians report prescribing drugs for the purposes of eliciting a placebo effect. Initial evidence for the efficacy of open-label placebos is promising. What does this study add? A more nuanced description of the circumstances under which primary care physicians report placebo prescribing. A qualitative account of physician attitudes about using open-label placebos in clinical practice.