Transforming Water: Social Influence Moderates Psychological, Physiological, and Functional Response to a Placebo Product

Can Translational Social Neuroscience Research Offer Insights to Mitigate Structural Racism in the United States?

Social isolation and conflict due to structural racism may result in human suffering and loneliness across the life span. Given the rising prevalence of these problems in the United States, combined with disruptions experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, the neurobiology of affiliative behaviors may offer practical solutions to the pressing challenges associated with structural racism. Controlled experiments across species demonstrate that social connections are critical to survival, although strengthening individual resilience is insufficient to address the magnitude and impact of structural racism. In contrast, the multilevel construct of social resilience, defined by the power of groups to cultivate, engage in, and sustain positive relationships that endure and recuperate from social adversities, offers unique insights that may have greater impact, reach, and durability than individual-level interventions. Here, we review putative social resilience-enhancing interventions and, when available, their biological mediators, with the hope to stimulate discovery of novel approaches to mitigate structural racism. We first explore the social neuroscience principles underlying psychotherapy and other psychiatric interventions. Then, we explore translational efforts across species to tailor treatments that increase social resilience, with context and cultural sensitivity in mind. Finally, we conclude with some practical future directions for understudied areas that may be essential for progress in biological psychiatry, including ethical ways to increase representation in research and developing social paradigms that inform dynamics toward or away from socially resilient outcomes.

Why context matters when changing the diet: A narrative review of placebo, nocebo, and psychosocial context effects and implications for outcome research and nutrition counselling

Placebo (PE) and nocebo effects (NE) have been subjects of systematic research in medicine and psychotherapy for many decades to distinguish between the (specific) pharmacological effect of medication and the (unspecific) effect of the context. Despite this significant research, the awareness, operationalisation, and reflection of the multiplicity of PE, NE, and psychosocial context effects (PSCE) is currently limited when researching outcomes of diet changes in studies without randomisation and placebo control. This neglection is critical as it could systematically influence outcomes by moderating and mediating them and thus reducing the validity and evidence base of these studies. Therefore, we performed a (non-systematic) narrative review (NR) on the following objectives: (1) present a concise overview about the relevance of PE, NE, and PSCE in medicine and nutrition research; (2) review the current state of research on reflecting context effects when studying diet changes; (3) provide useful theoretical foundations via consideration and integration of micro- and macro context effects; (4) operationalise as hypotheses the potential PE, NE, and PSCE which are specific for researching diet changes; and (5) derive their impact for future research as well as for nutrition counselling. The electronic search in this NR for objective (2) identified N = 5 publications and for objective (4) we found N = 61 articles retrieved in the first round of search, additional references were identified by a manual and snowball search among the cited references resulting finally in N = 37. This NR offers a synoptical basis to foster awareness and operationalisation of a variety of PE, NE, and PSCE. Interdisciplinary research teams should monitor these factors using, e.g., qualitative, mixed-method studies, process evaluation, item bank approaches, moderator and mediator analysis that might reveal substantially new insights, and outcomes of relevance to science and nutrition counselling. Nevertheless, the present NR has several limitations, especially as it is non-systematic, because it is a very heterogeneous field of research, in which the topic we are investigating is usually regarded as marginal and subordinate. Therefore, future research should conduct systematic reviews and particularly theory-based primary studies (experimental research) on hypotheses of PE, NE, and PSCE in outcome research in diet changes.

European Headache Federation recommendations for placebo and nocebo terminology

Background and aim

Despite recent publications, practitioners remain unfamiliar with the current terminology related to the placebo and nocebo phenomena observed in clinical trials and practice, nor with the factors that modulate them. To cover the gap, the European Headache Federation appointed a panel of experts to clarify the terms associated with the use of placebo in clinical trials.

Methods

The working group identified relevant questions and agreed upon recommendations. Because no data were required to answer the questions, the GRADE approach was not applicable, and thus only expert opinion was provided according to an amended Delphi method. The initial 12 topics for discussion were revised in the opinion of the majority of the panelists, and after a total of 6 rounds of negotiations, the final agreement is presented.

Results/recommendations

Two primary and mechanism-based recommendations are provided for the results of clinical trials: [1] to distinguish the placebo or nocebo response from the placebo or nocebo effect; and [2] for any favorable outcome observed after placebo administration, the term “placebo response” should be used, and for any unfavorable outcome recorded after placebo administration, the term “nocebo response” should be used (12 out of 17 panelists agreed, 70.6% agreement). The placebo or nocebo responses are attributed to a set of factors including those that are related to the medical condition (e.g. natural history, random comorbidities, etc.), along with idiosyncratic ones, in which the placebo or nocebo effects are attributed to idiosyncratic, or nonspecific mechanisms, exclusively (e.g. expectation, conditioning, observational learning etc.). To help investigators and practitioners, the panel summarized a list of environmental factors and idiosyncratic dynamics modulating placebo and nocebo effects. Some of them are modifiable, and investigators or physicians need to know about them in order to modify these factors appropriately to improve treatment. One secondary recommendation addresses the use of the terms “placebo” and “nocebo” (“placebos” and “nocebos” in plural), which refer to the triggers of the placebo/nocebo effects or responses, respectively, and which are inert agents or interventions that should not be confused with the placebo/nocebo responses or effects themselves (all panelists agreed, 100% agreement).

Conclusion

The working group recommends distinguishing the term response from effect to describe health changes from before to after placebo application and to distinguish the terms placebo(s) or nocebo(s) from the health consequences that they cause (placebo/nocebo responses or effects).

A randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial of a decaffeinated energy drink shows no significant acute effect on mental energy

BACKGROUND

"Energy drinks" are heavily marketed to the general public, across the age spectrum. The efficacy of decaffeinated energy drinks in enhancing subjective feelings of energy (s-energy) is controversial.

OBJECTIVE

The authors sought to test the efficacy of the caffeine-free version of a popular energy drink compared with a placebo drink.

METHODS

This study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial in 223 healthy men and women aged 18-70 y with intention-to-treat and completers analysis. Participants were randomly assigned to consumption of either the decaffeinated energy drink or a placebo drink on testing day 1, and the other drink a week later. A battery of computer-based mood and cognitive tests to assess s-energy was conducted at baseline and at 0.5, 2.5, and 5 h post-ingestion. The main outcome measures were 1) mood, which was assessed by using a General Status Check Scale and the Profile of Mood States 2nd edition brief form, and 2) cognitive measures, including the N-back task (reaction time and accuracy), Reaction Time test, Flanker task (distraction avoidance), and Rapid Visual Information Processing test.

RESULTS

No statistically significant or meaningful benefits were observed for any outcome measure, including mood and cognitive measures. Analyses of mean differences, slopes, and median differences were consistent.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences were detected across a range of mood/cognitive/behavioral/s-energy-level tests after consumption of the energy drink compared with a placebo drink in this diverse sample of adults. Thus, we found strong evidence that the energy drink is not efficacious in enhancing s-energy levels, nor any related cognitive or behavioral variables measured. In light of federal regulations, these findings suggest that labeling and marketing of some products which claim to provide these benefits may be unsubstantiated. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02727920.

The Bell Tolls for Homeopathy: Time for Change in the Training and Practice of North American Naturopathic Physicians

North American naturopathic medicine is a distinct form of practice that is woven into the larger fabric of integrative medicine; in a number of US states and Canadian provinces, naturopathic doctors enjoy a wide scope of practice, including the ability to make diagnoses, order tests, use medical technology, write prescription drugs, and perform minor surgeries. However, the basic premise of naturopathic medicine and its guiding principles-considering the whole person and supporting healthy lifestyle behaviors-is the unifying approach in clinical practice. In the 1970s, homeopathy-considered in many circles to be a hypothesis-driven, fringe form of alternative medicine-became embedded into the training and practice of North American naturopathic doctors. Since the earliest days of its theory (circa 1800), homeopathy has escaped, and continues to escape, biological plausibility; however, the persistence of this modality (and the insistence by both its consumers and practitioners that it provides benefit) speaks to the role of expectations, beliefs, values, agency, context effects, and the placebo-at-large. It is our contention that the progression of professional naturopathic medicine in the 21st century requires a major transition in how it approaches the subject of homeopathy. We propose that students should be encouraged to critically analyze the tenets of homeopathy, its lesser known history, and the idea of homeopathy as a biomedicine that simply awaits untold chemicophysical mechanisms. Furthermore, the modality of homeopathy should be incorporated into the larger context of placebo studies, narrative medicine, ethics, and psychotherapeutic techniques.

Reinterpreting homoeopathy in the light of placebo effects to manage patients who seek homoeopathic care: A systematic review

Homoeopathy is widespread, and users claim to benefit from it. However, clear evidence of its efficacy over placebo is not available to date. As a consequence, a social separation between homoeopathy users and mainstream medicine exists, exposing these patients to many risks. Our primary objective is to assess homoeopathy efficacy by systematically reviewing existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to systematically review trials on open-label placebo (OLP) treatments. A secondary objective is to understand if homoeopathy as a whole may be considered as a placebo treatment. PubMed/Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on homoeopathy efficacy, and 61 studies were included. Same databases plus Journal of Interdisciplinary Placebo Studies (JIPS) were also systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on OLP treatments, and 10 studies were included. Databases were searched up to 24 February 2018. Two authors independently screened all retrieved articles and selected studies eligible for inclusion. The quality of reviews of included studies was evaluated with a dedicated NIH tool in the first review, whereas the risk of bias of trials of included studies was assessed with the specific Cochrane tool in the second review. Qualitative syntheses show that homoeopathy efficacy can be considered comparable to placebo, and that OLP treatments may be effective in some health conditions. Placebo effects like placebo itself, treatment context, physician-patient relationship, and other nonspecific factors can define the idea of placebo treatments, which may be effective in some conditions. If homoeopathy efficacy is comparable to placebo, and if placebo treatments can be effective in some conditions, then homoeopathy as a whole may be considered as a placebo treatment. Reinterpreting homoeopathy as a placebo treatment would define limits and possibilities of this practice. This perspective shift suggests a strategy to manage patients who seek homoeopathic care and to reconcile them with mainstream medicine in a sustainable way.

Psychologic Factors Do Not Affect Placebo Responses After Upper Extremity Injections: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Studies on how psychologic factors influence the placebo effect have shown conflicting results in an experimental setting. Pessimists are more likely to experience a nocebo effect (feel worse after an inert intervention), whereas other studies suggest that patients with more symptoms of depression or anxiety or greater neuroticism have a greater response to a placebo. This is important because treatment benefits are potentiated by placebo effects, and optimal utilization of this phenomenon may improve clinical outcomes.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What psychologic factors are associated with a decrease in magnitude of limitations (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand [DASH] score) and pain intensity (visual analog scale [VAS] for pain) after placebo injections for the treatment of painful nontraumatic upper extremity conditions? (2) What psychologic factors are associated with achieving a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in disability and pain intensity?

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of data acquired in two prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trials of patients with lateral elbow pain, trapeziometacarpal arthrosis, and de Quervain tendinopathy who received a single injection of dexamethasone and lidocaine or lidocaine alone (placebo). One hundred six patients were included between June 2003 and February 2008. Sixty-three patients (59%) received dexamethasone and lidocaine, and we analyzed the subset of 43 patients (41%) who received lidocaine alone. The primary outcomes of interest were the DASH questionnaire and the VAS for pain measured three times: when they received the injection, between 1 and 3 months after the injection, and between 5 and 8 months after the injection. Seven patients missed the first followup visit and 14 patients missed the second visit. Based on previous research, we chose a MCID threshold of 10 for the DASH and a threshold of 1.0 for the VAS score. In bivariate analysis, we accounted for sex, race, marital status, degree, education, work status, pretreatment pain, diagnosis, symptoms of depression (Center of Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale), coping strategies in response to nociception (Pain Catastrophizing Scale), and personality traits (measured with the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control scale and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised score). Variables with p values < 0.10 in bivariate analysis were included in the multivariable regression models. An a priori power analysis showed that a sample of 43 participants provides 80% statistical power, with α set at 0.05, for a regression with five predictors if the depression score would account for 15% or more of the variability in pain score. We used multiple imputations (imputations = 50) for a total of 66 (8.5%) missing or incomplete questionnaires.

RESULTS

In the final multivariable models, no psychologic factors were associated with a change in DASH score between injection and followup, and no factors were associated with greater decrease in pain intensity. After injection, no psychologic factors were independently associated with achieving a MCID in the DASH and VAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms that patient factors are less important mediators of the placebo effect than clinician factors. In other words, clinician warmth and competence can help diminish symptoms and limitations of people in various states of mind, even when using inert or ineffective treatments.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study.

The Physical Examination as Ritual: Social Sciences and Embodiment in the Context of the Physical Examination

The privilege of examining a patient is a skill of value beyond its diagnostic utility. A thorough physical examination is an important ritual that benefits patients and physicians. The concept of embodiment helps one understand how illness and pain further define and shape the lived experiences of individuals in the context of their race, gender, sexuality, and socioeconomic status. Understanding ritual in medicine, including the placebo effects of such rituals, reaffirms the centrality of the physical examination to the process of building strong physician-patient relationships.

Mindsets Matter: A New Framework for Harnessing the Placebo Effect in Modern Medicine

The clinical utility of the placebo effect has long hinged on physicians deceptively administering an objective placebo treatment to their patients. However, the power of the placebo does not reside in the sham treatment itself; rather, it comes from the psychosocial forces that surround the patient and the treatment. To this end, we propose a new framework for understanding and leveraging the placebo effect in clinical care. In outlining this framework, we first present the placebo effect as a neurobiological effect that is evoked by psychological processes. Next, we argue that along with implicit learning and expectation formation, mindsets are a key psychological process involved in the placebo effect. Finally, we illustrate the critical role of the social environment and treatment context in shaping these psychological processes. In doing so, we offer a guide for how the placebo effect can be understood, harnessed, and leveraged in the practice of modern medicine.