Participants' experiences of being debriefed to placebo allocation in a clinical trial

Efficacy of acupuncture in refractory irritable bowel syndrome patients: a randomized controlled trial

Previous studies have confirmed that acupuncture for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) provided an additional benefit over usual care alone. Therefore, we performed a multicenter, randomized, sham-controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture versus sham acupuncture for refractory IBS in patients in the context of conventional treatments. Patients in the acupuncture and sham acupuncture groups received real or sham acupuncture treatment in 3 sessions per week for a total of 12 sessions. The primary outcome was a change in the IBS-Symptom Severity Scale (IBS-SSS) score from baseline to week 4. A total of 521 participants were screened, and 170 patients (85 patients per group) were enrolled and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Baseline characteristics were comparable across the two groups. From baseline to 4 weeks, the IBS-SSS total score decreased by 140.0 (95% CI: 126.0 to 153.9) in the acupuncture group and 64.4 (95% CI: 50.4 to 78.3) in the sham acupuncture group. The between-group difference was 75.6 (95% CI: 55.8 to 95.4). Acupuncture efficacy was maintained during the 4-week follow-up period. There were no serious adverse events. In conclusion, acupuncture provided benefits when combined with treatment as usual, providing more options for the treatment of refractory IBS.

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.

‘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.

The Challenges of Ethical Review in Clinical Research of Traditional Chinese Medicine

The ethical review of TCM (traditional Chinese medicine) clinical research in China is highly consistent with that of Western medicine, but it lacks the characteristics and culture of TCM. Compared with modern medicine, TCM has its own characteristics, such as the theory of Yin-Yang and the five elements, the treatment of syndrome differentiation, and the compatibility of prescriptions. These characteristics determine the ethical particularity of TCM clinical research. This article discusses the challenges in the ethical review of TCM clinical research, such as scientific design, efficacy evaluation, risk assessment, informed consent, and placebo use. We propose opportunities and difficulties in the ethical review of TCM clinical research and provide some relevant suggestions.

The challenge of equipoise in trials with a surgical and non-surgical comparison: a qualitative synthesis using meta-ethnography

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials in surgery can be a challenge to design and conduct, especially when including a non-surgical comparison. As few as half of initiated surgical trials reach their recruitment target, and failure to recruit is cited as the most frequent reason for premature closure of surgical RCTs. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis was to identify and synthesise findings from qualitative studies exploring the challenges in the design and conduct of trials directly comparing surgical and non-surgical interventions.

METHODS

A qualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography was conducted. Six electronic bibliographic databases (Medline, Central, Cinahl, Embase and PsycInfo) were searched up to the end of February 2018. Studies that explored patients' and health care professionals' experiences regarding participating in RCTs with a surgical and non-surgical comparison were included. The GRADE-CERQual framework was used to assess confidence in review findings.

RESULTS

In total, 3697 abstracts and 49 full texts were screened and 26 published studies reporting experiences of patients and healthcare professionals were included. The focus of the studies (24/26) was primarily related to the challenge of recruitment. Two studies explored reasons for non-compliance to treatment allocation following randomisation. Five themes related to the challenges to these types of trials were identified: (1) radical choice between treatments; (2) patients' discomfort with randomisation: I want the best treatment for me as an individual; (3) challenge of equipoise: patients' a priori preferences for treatment; (4) challenge of equipoise: clinicians' a priori preferences for treatment and (5) imbalanced presentation of interventions.

CONCLUSION

The marked dichotomy between the surgical and non-surgical interventions was highlighted in this review as making recruitment to these types of trials particularly challenging. This review identified factors that increase our understanding of why patients and clinicians may find equipoise more challenging in these types of trials compared to other trial comparisons. Trialists may wish to consider exploring the balance of potential factors influencing patient and clinician preferences towards treatments before they start recruitment, to enable issues specific to a particular trial to be identified and addressed. This may enable trial teams to make more efficient considered design choices and benefit the delivery of such trials.

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.

Use of acupuncture in the management of pain

Nurses practising in almost any area of healthcare may encounter individuals who are considering acupuncture, particularly those caring for people who are experiencing chronic pain. Acupuncture is a complex intervention and in traditional practice is not simply the insertion of needles, as some people believe. This article provides a historical understanding of acupuncture, outlining some of the differences between styles of practice that may be relevant when selecting an acupuncturist. It also examines the issues that should be considered when assessing the evidence base for acupuncture.

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.

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

Lack of knowledge about placebos affects participants’ understanding of trials and breaches the ethical obligations of researchers, argue C R Blease, F L Bishop, and T J Kaptchuk

Altruism, personal benefit, and anxieties: a phenomenological study of healthy volunteers' experiences in a placebo-controlled trial of duloxetine

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to develop an in-depth understanding of healthy volunteers' experiences of mental health trials.

METHODS

A qualitative study was nested within a healthy volunteer placebo-controlled trial of duloxetine, a psychotropic drug used for treating patients with major depression and generalized anxiety disorder. Eight participants were interviewed, and data were analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis.

RESULTS

Interviewees described volunteering for the trial because they were interested in research, wanted the monetary incentive, wanted to help researchers, and wanted to be part of something. On entering the trial, participants considered the possible risks and described feeling anxious, excited, and determined; they had some clear expectations and some loosely held hopes about what would happen. During the trial, participants were curious about whether they were taking duloxetine or placebo, self-monitored their bodies' reactions, and guessed which treatment they received. On being un-blinded to treatment allocation after completing the trial, some participants' guesses were confirmed, but others were surprised, and a few were disappointed.

CONCLUSIONS

Small changes to advertising/consent materials to reflect volunteers' motivations could improve recruitment rates to similar trials; "active" placebos might be particularly useful for maintaining blinding in healthy volunteer trials; and sensitive procedures are needed for un-blinding participants to treatment allocation. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Informing Patients About Placebo Effects: Using Evidence, Theory, and Qualitative Methods to Develop a New Website

Background

According to established ethical principles and guidelines, patients in clinical trials should be fully informed about the interventions they might receive. However, information about placebo-controlled clinical trials typically focuses on the new intervention being tested and provides limited and at times misleading information about placebos.

Objective

We aimed to create an informative, scientifically accurate, and engaging website that could be used to improve understanding of placebo effects among patients who might be considering taking part in a placebo-controlled clinical trial.

Methods

Our approach drew on evidence-, theory-, and person-based intervention development. We used existing evidence and theory about placebo effects to develop content that was scientifically accurate. We used existing evidence and theory of health behavior to ensure our content would be communicated persuasively, to an audience who might currently be ignorant or misinformed about placebo effects. A qualitative ‘think aloud’ study was conducted in which 10 participants viewed prototypes of the website and spoke their thoughts out loud in the presence of a researcher.

Results

The website provides information about 10 key topics and uses text, evidence summaries, quizzes, audio clips of patients’ stories, and a short film to convey key messages. Comments from participants in the think aloud study highlighted occasional misunderstandings and off-putting/confusing features. These were addressed by modifying elements of content, style, and navigation to improve participants’ experiences of using the website.

Conclusions

We have developed an evidence-based website that incorporates theory-based techniques to inform members of the public about placebos and placebo effects. Qualitative research ensured our website was engaging and convincing for our target audience who might not perceive a need to learn about placebo effects. Before using the website in clinical trials, it is necessary to test its effects on key outcomes including patients’ knowledge and capacity for making informed choices about placebos.

Effect of Unblinding on Participants' Perceptions of Risk and Confidence in a Large Double-Blind Clinical Trial of Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Blinding patients to treatment regimen is an important component of high-quality randomized clinical trials, although concern exists about how receipt of a placebo will affect participants' views, particularly among patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether unblinding of random assignment to placebo vs experimental agent in a large adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy randomized clinical trial was associated with perception of greater chance of cancer recurrence and lower confidence in the decision to participate in the trial in participants who were randomized to placebo compared with those randomized to experimental therapy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Serial telephone-based prospective survey substudy of all Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Protocol 5103 (ECOG5103) participants enrolling between January 5 and June 8, 2010. In ECOG5103, patients were randomized to receive standard adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer with either placebo or bevacizumab for either approximately 6 or approximately 12 months. Treatment assignment was unblinded by 24 weeks, and then patients were surveyed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Trial participants' self-reported perceived risk of recurrence and confidence in study participation.

RESULTS

Of 571 patients in this substudy who started protocol therapy, 550 were still in the study at unblinding and 492 (89%) responded to the unblinding survey. At unblinding, 336 of 477 (70%) believed that they had at most a small risk of breast cancer recurrence, and 342 of 480 (71%) reported perceiving at most a small risk of serious problem with therapy; most reported feeling very informed (421 of 483 [87%]) and having high levels of confidence in their study participation (420 of 483 [87%]). The 102 participants who learned that they had been randomized to placebo did not have greater perception of chance of recurrence (P = .48) or fear of recurrence (P = .69), feel less informed (P = .86), or have lower confidence in trial participation (P = .31) compared with the 390 participants who had been randomized to experimental therapy. Patients who learned that they had been randomized to bevacizumab perceived higher risk of having a serious problem caused by treatment (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In a placebo-controlled, double-blind randomized clinical trial of chemotherapy for breast cancer, unblinding to randomization allocation did not significantly affect most participants' views except for chance of a serious problem from experimental treatment, regardless of receipt of placebo or experimental anticancer therapy along with standard chemotherapy.

When and why placebo-prescribing is acceptable and unacceptable: a focus group study of patients' views

Background

Surveys of doctors suggest that they use placebos and placebo effects clinically to help patients. However, patients' views are not well-understood. We aimed to identify when and why placebo-prescribing in primary care might be acceptable and unacceptable to patients.

Methods

A purposive diverse sample of 58 English-speaking adults (18 men; aged 19–80 years) participated in 11 focus groups. Vignettes describing doctors prescribing placebos in primary care were used to initiate discussions. Data were analyzed inductively.

Results

Participants discussed diverse harms and benefits of placebo-prescribing for individual patients, carers, healthcare providers, and society. Two perspectives on placebo-prescribing were identified. First, the “consequentialist” perspective focused on the potential for beneficial outcomes of placebo-prescribing. Here, some participants thought placebos are beneficial and should be used clinically; they often invoked the power of the mind or mind-body interactions. Others saw placebos as ineffective and therefore a waste of time and money. Second, the “respecting autonomy” perspective emphasized the harms caused by the deceptive processes thought necessary for placebo-prescribing. Here, participants judged placebo-prescribing unacceptable because placebo-prescribers deceive patients, thus a doctor who prescribes placebos cannot be trusted and patients' autonomy is compromised. They also saw placebo-responders as gullible, which deterred them from trying placebos themselves. Overall, the word “placebo” was often thought to imply “ineffective”; some participants suggested alternative carefully chosen language that could enable doctors to prescribe placebos without directly lying to patients.

Conclusions

Negative views of placebos derive from beliefs that placebos do not work and/or that they require deception by the doctor. Positive views are pragmatic in that if placebos work then any associated processes (e.g. mechanisms, deception) are deemed unimportant. Public education about placebos and their effects is warranted and research to identify optimal ways of harnessing placebo effects in clinical practice is needed.

The potential benefit of the placebo effect in sham-controlled trials: implications for risk-benefit assessments and informed consent

There has been considerable debate surrounding the ethics of sham-controlled trials of procedures and interventions. Critics argue that these trials are unethical because participants assigned to the control group have no prospect of benefit from the trial, yet they are exposed to all the risks of the sham intervention. However, the placebo effect associated with sham procedures can often be substantial and has been well documented in the scientific literature. We argue that, in light of the scientific evidence supporting the benefits of sham interventions for pain and Parkinson's disease that stem from the placebo effect, these sham-controlled trials should be considered as offering potential direct benefit to participants. If scientific evidence demonstrates the positive effect of placebo from sham interventions on other conditions, sham-controlled trials of interventions for the treatment of these conditions should be considered to have prospects of benefit as well. This potential benefit should be taken into account by research ethics committees in risk-benefit analyses, and be included in informed consent documents.