Search

Background: With evidence for large nocebo effects in pain, guidelines for nocebo-minimizing strategies regarding side effect disclosure are emerging. While the ethical implications and effectiveness of such strategies have been the subject of investigations, the perspective of healthcare users are missing despite the stakes for patient autonomy., Methods: In an online survey, 2766 adults (≥18 years) from a general population sample in Europe and North America responded to questions related to nocebo familiarity, nocebo beliefs and attitudes towards side effect disclosure., Results: Only 474 (17%) were familiar with nocebo terminology, while 1379 (50%) were familiar with the concept of nocebo side effects. Belief in nocebo side effects was not well-established; 738 (31%) agreed that side effect information could increase side effect occurrence. Nocebo belief was associated with more negative attitudes towards side effect disclosure and 1962 (73%) indicated that positive framing was an acceptable way of disclosing side effect information. In general, the majority of participants (65-76%) held positive attitudes towards the disclosure of all potential side effects and 2309 (84%) favoured patient autonomy over nonmaleficence. Although the general patterns were similar in the European and North American sample, the latter showed stronger nocebo belief and stronger positive attitudes towards side effect disclosure., Conclusions: The study found a consistent, moderate association between nocebo belief and attitudes towards nondisclosure, alongside positive attitudes towards the use of framing. Together with the discovered discrepancy between nocebo familiarity and nocebo belief, these findings have implications for the implementation of nocebo education and risk framing strategies., Significance Statement: This is the first large-scale, general population-based study to contribute to the scientific discussion about nocebo side effects from the perspective of healthcare users. The findings have implications for the discussion on how to handle the medical and ethical problem of nocebo side effects in clinical practice., (© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Pain published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Pain Federation ‐ EFIC ®.)

Adverse nocebo responses can cause harm to patients and interfere with treatment adherence and effects in both clinic practice and clinical trials. Nocebo responses refer to negative outcomes to active medical treatments in clinical trials or practice that cannot be explained by the treatment's pharmacologic effects. Negative expectancies and nocebo effects are less known than placebo responses. Nocebo effects can be triggered by verbal suggestions, prior negative experiences, observation of others experiencing negative outcomes, and other contextual and environmental factors. As research advances over the years, mechanistic knowledge is accumulating on the neurobiological mechanisms of nocebo effects. This review summarizes studies on different facets of nocebo effects and responses and discusses clinical implications, ethical considerations, and future directions.

Sex differences exist in the prevalence, progression and treatment efficacy of a wide array of medical conditions. While the placebo and nocebo effects have become increasingly relevant in the clinical arena, little is known about the influence of biological sex on placebo and nocebo effects. This paper discusses the existing, relatively limited and sometimes conflicting evidence about how sex impacts the occurrence and magnitude of the placebo and nocebo effects, mainly focusing on pain studies. We present recent evidence that when compared to men, women suffering from chronic orofacial pain may derive greater benefit from the placebo effect for analgesia. Nonetheless, we broadly argue that the field is not currently positioned to draw definitive conclusions and propose several important factors that may explain the inconsistency in the literature and that should be taken into account in future research. These include the specific target symptom of the placebo or nocebo manipulation and whether or not the target is related to the medical condition, the placebo or nocebo induction method, the sex of the experimenter or physician, and so forth. Future research should intentionally include sex a biological variable to favor translation of placebo and nocebo mechanisms into clinical applications., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Clinical and laboratory studies demonstrate that placebo and nocebo effects influence various symptoms and conditions after the administration of both inert and active treatments., Objective: There is an increasing need for up-to-date recommendations on how to inform patients about placebo and nocebo effects in clinical practice and train clinicians how to disclose this information., Methods: Based on previous clinical recommendations concerning placebo and nocebo effects, a 3-step, invitation-only Delphi study was conducted among an interdisciplinary group of internationally recognized experts. The study consisted of open- and closed-ended survey questions followed by a final expert meeting. The surveys were subdivided into 3 parts: (1) informing patients about placebo effects, (2) informing patients about nocebo effects, and (3) training clinicians how to communicate this information to the patients., Results: There was consensus that communicating general information about placebo and nocebo effects to patients (e.g., explaining their role in treatment) could be beneficial, but that such information needs to be adjusted to match the specific clinical context (e.g., condition and treatment). Experts also agreed that training clinicians to communicate about placebo and nocebo effects should be a regular and integrated part of medical education that makes use of multiple formats, including face-to-face and online modalities., Conclusions: The current 3-step Delphi study provides consensus-based recommendations and practical considerations for disclosures about placebo and nocebo effects in clinical practice. Future research is needed on how to optimally tailor information to specific clinical conditions and patients' needs, and on developing standardized disclosure training modules for clinicians., (© 2020 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

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).

Oxytocin has been shown to increase trust, decrease anxiety, and affect learning as has been observed in conditioning paradigms. Trust, anxiety, and learning are important factors that influence placebo effects. In this study, we investigated whether oxytocin can increase placebo analgesia, decrease nocebo hyperalgesia, and influence extinction processes of both. Eighty male volunteers were assigned to a 40 IU of oxytocin nasal spray group, or to a placebo control group. Placebo analgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia were induced by a conditioning procedure in combination with verbal suggestions. The results demonstrate that the conditioning procedure successfully elicited significant placebo analgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia responses (P < .001). Furthermore, extinction was observed (P < .001), although placebo and nocebo responses did not return to baseline and remained significant. Oxytocin did not influence placebo analgesia or nocebo hyperalgesia and had no effect on extinction. This study provides support against the placebo-boosting effects of oxytocin and was the first one to demonstrate that it also did not influence nocebo effects or extinction processes, however, these results pertain to only a male sample. As managing placebo and nocebo effects has widespread clinical implications, further research should investigate other neurobiological or behavioral pathways to boost placebo and decrease nocebo effects. PERSPECTIVE: The present study demonstrated that placebo analgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia can be successfully induced by conditioning and verbal suggestions. We could not confirm the hypothesis that oxytocin affects either of these phenomena. Other pharmacological agents and behavioral manipulations for increasing placebo and decreasing nocebo effects should be investigated., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims and Objectives: To describe contextual factors (CFs) used by nurses to increase placebo and to prevent nocebo effects., Background: Placebo effects have been studied in the nursing discipline, but nocebo effects still remain unexplored. Recently, a set of CFs functioning as triggers of placebo/nocebo effects has been described; however, its use in daily care has never been documented to date., Design: A national cross-sectional survey, according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys guidelines and STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), was performed in 2016., Methods: A wide sample of Italian nurses belonging to four national associations was involved. A questionnaire based on CFs literature was developed and administered through the SurveyMonkey Software ® exploring: (a) CFs definition, (b) beliefs, (c) case-by-case frequency of use, (d) circumstances of application, (e) clinical conditions where participants perceived their potential beneficial effects, (f) ethical implications and (g) communication issues with the patient., Results: Out of 1,411 eligible nurses, 455 answered (32.2%) and 425 questionnaires (30.1%) were valid for the analysis. A total of 211 nurses (49.6%) defined the CFs as an intervention with a possible aspecific effect; participants believed in the CFs (2.91; 95%CI 2.88-2.94), using them >2 times/month, mainly in addition to a nursing intervention to optimise clinical outcomes (n = 79; 18.6%). Psychological and physiological therapeutic effects have been perceived mainly in chronic pain (n = 259; 60.9%) and insomnia (n = 243; 57.2%). According to participants, CFs have been reported as ethically acceptable when exerting beneficial psychological effects (n = 148; 34.8%); however, 103 (24.2%) of nurses did not communicate to the patient when CFs were used., Conclusions: Nurses are aware of CFs as elements to increase the placebo and prevent the nocebo effects in concomitance with evidence-based nursing interventions., Relevance to Clinical Practice: The CFs valued by nurses and experienced as effective are mainly based upon the internal quality of the nurse and the quality of the relationship between the nurse and the patient. These qualities require a large personal investment; therefore, nurses should be supported in developing these qualities since their nursing graduation., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Pain, a noxious psychosensory experience, motivates escape behavior to assure protection and survival. Psychological factors alter the experience and trajectory of pain, as well as behavior and treatment response. In the context of pain, the placebo effect (expectation for pain relief) releases endogenous opioids and facilitates analgesia from exogenously administered opioids. Nocebo hyperalgesia (expectation for persistent or worsening pain) opposes endogenous opioid analgesia and patient engagement in prescription opioid tapering. Reductions in nocebo hyperalgesia and pain catastrophizing may enhance descending modulation of pain, mediate adaptive structural brain changes and promote patient engagement in opioid tapering. Interventions that minimize nocebo and optimize placebo may adaptively shape the central nervous system toward pain relief and potentially opioid reduction. Here we provide a critical description of catastrophizing and its impact on pain, placebo and nocebo effects. We also consider the importance of minimizing nocebo and optimizing placebo effects during prescription opioid tapering, and offer a clinical toolkit of resources to accomplish these goals clinically., (© 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Placebo and nocebo effects form part of all therapeutic environments and play a significant role in the effectiveness of treatment outcomes. Patient expectancies drive these phenomena, which can be shaped through contextual factors including verbal suggestions, conditioning, and social observation., Objectives: This review seeks to identify the biopsychosocial factors of the patient-practitioner interaction that play a role in the development of placebo and nocebo effects, as well as the anthropological elements of the biodynamic process of relating that are meaningful in the development of expectancies., Methods: We conducted a narrative review of frameworks of the placebo and nocebo effect, including the impact of expectancies and interpersonal relationships in the context of healing and the clinical setting., Results: Expectancies leading to placebo and nocebo effects can be modified by macro and micro factors, such as culture and society, as well as individual psychobiological traits, respectively. The developmental sociobiological adaptations that form and consolidate mindsets and meaningful contexts play an important role in shaping patient expectancies, as well as patients' conscious and subconscious reactions to signs and actions taking place within the clinical environment. Practitioner characteristics, like empathy, friendliness, and competence, favor the formation of positive expectancies. Caring and warm patient-practitioner interactions can enhance the therapeutic value of clinical encounters when patients' positive expectancies are actively encouraged and engaged., Conclusion: A patient-centered approach rooted in demonstrating care and empathy can positively enhance a patient's experience within the clinical environment and activate psychosociobiological adaptations associated with the placebo phenomenon. Pain patients could particularly benefit from non-invasive approaches for improving treatment effectiveness and quality-of-life., (© 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Placebo and nocebo effects occur in clinical or laboratory medical contexts after administration of an inert treatment or as part of active treatments and are due to psychobiological mechanisms such as expectancies of the patient. Placebo and nocebo studies have evolved from predominantly methodological research into a far-reaching interdisciplinary field that is unravelling the neurobiological, behavioural and clinical underpinnings of these phenomena in a broad variety of medical conditions. As a consequence, there is an increasing demand from health professionals to develop expert recommendations about evidence-based and ethical use of placebo and nocebo effects for clinical practice., Methods: A survey and interdisciplinary expert meeting by invitation was organized as part of the 1st Society for Interdisciplinary Placebo Studies (SIPS) conference in 2017. Twenty-nine internationally recognized placebo researchers participated., Results: There was consensus that maximizing placebo effects and minimizing nocebo effects should lead to better treatment outcomes with fewer side effects. Experts particularly agreed on the importance of informing patients about placebo and nocebo effects and training health professionals in patient-clinician communication to maximize placebo and minimize nocebo effects., Conclusions: The current paper forms a first step towards developing evidence-based and ethical recommendations about the implications of placebo and nocebo research for medical practice, based on the current state of evidence and the consensus of experts. Future research might focus on how to implement these recommendations, including how to optimize conditions for educating patients about placebo and nocebo effects and providing training for the implementation in clinical practice., (© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Accumulating evidence reveal important applications of endogenous pain modulation assessment in healthy controls and in patients in clinical settings, as dysregulations in the balance of pain modulatory circuits may facilitate pain and promote chronification of pain. This article reviews data on pain modulation, focusing on the mechanisms and translational aspects of pain modulation from conditioned pain modulation (CPM) to placebo and nocebo effects in experimental and clinical pain. The specific roles of expectations, learning, neural and neurophysiological mechanisms of the central nervous system are briefly reviewed herein. The interaction between CPM and placebo systems in pain inhibitory pathways is highly relevant in the clinic and in randomized controlled trials yet remains to be clarified. Examples of clinical implications of CPM and its relationship to placebo and nocebo effects are provided. A greater understanding of the role of pain modulation in various pain states can help characterize the manifestation and development of chronic pain and assist in predicting the response to pain-relieving treatments. Placebo and nocebo effects, intrinsic to every treatment, can be used to develop personalized therapeutic approaches that improve clinical outcomes while limiting unwanted effects., (© 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: Many studies have found evidence of conditioning-induced nocebo hyperalgesia. However, these studies have exclusively involved continuous reinforcement (CRF) schedules. Thus, it is currently unknown whether nocebo hyperalgesia can result after partial reinforcement (PRF). We tested this using electrodermal pain stimulation in healthy volunteers. Undergraduates (N = 135) received nocebo treatment under the guise of a hyperalgesic. Participants were randomly allocated to CRF, PRF, or control (no conditioning). Conditioning involved surreptitiously increasing pain stimulation on nocebo trials relative to control trials. During training, the CRF group always had the nocebo paired with the surreptitious pain increase, whereas the PRF group experienced the increase on only 62.5% of nocebo trials. In the test phase, pain stimulation was equivalent across nocebo and control trials. PRF was sufficient to induce nocebo hyperalgesia; however, this was weaker than CRF. Nocebo hyperalgesia failed to extinguish irrespective of the training schedule. Additional assessment of expectancies indicated strong concordance between expectancy and nocebo hyperalgesia. Overall, these findings suggest that once established, nocebo hyperalgesia may be difficult to disrupt. PRF may be a novel method of reducing the intensity of nocebo hyperalgesia in the clinic, which may be particularly important given its persistence., Perspective: This study provides novel evidence that partial reinforcement results in weaker nocebo hyperalgesia than continuous reinforcement and that nocebo hyperalgesia fails to extinguish, irrespective of the training schedule. As a result, partial reinforcement may serve as a method for reducing the intensity of nocebo hyperalgesia in the clinic., (Copyright © 2015 American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The investigation of nocebo effects is evolving, and a few literature reviews have emerged, although so far without quantifying such effects. This meta-analysis investigated nocebo effects in pain. We searched the databases PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register with the term "nocebo." Only studies that investigated nocebo effects as the effects that followed the administration of an inert treatment along with verbal suggestions of symptom worsening and that included a no-treatment control condition were eligible. Ten studies fulfilled the selection criteria. The effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d and Hedges' g. The overall magnitude of the nocebo effect was moderate to large (lowest g=0.62 [0.24-1.01] and highest g=1.03 [0.63-1.43]) and highly variable (range of g=-0.43 to 4.05). The magnitudes and range of effect sizes was similar to those of placebo effects (d=0.81) in mechanistic studies. In studies in which nocebo effects were induced by a combination of verbal suggestions and conditioning, the effect size was larger (lowest g=0.76 [0.39-1.14] and highest g=1.17 [0.52-1.81]) than in studies in which nocebo effects were induced by verbal suggestions alone (lowest g=0.64 [-0.25 to 1.53] and highest g=0.87 [0.40-1.34]). These findings are similar to those in the placebo literature. As the magnitude of the nocebo effect is variable and sometimes large, this meta-analysis demonstrates the importance of minimizing nocebo effects in clinical practice., (Copyright © 2014 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Placebo analgesia makes individuals experience relief of their pain simply by virtue of the anticipation of a benefit. A reduction of pain can occur also when placebos follow the administration of active and effective painkillers. In fact, studies indicate that placebos mimic the action of active treatments and promote the endogenous release of opioids in both humans and animals. Finally, social support and observational learning also lead to analgesic effects. Thus, different psychological factors and situations induce expectations of analgesia facilitating the activation of the top-down systems for pain control along with the release of endogenous mediators crucially involved in placebo-induced benefits. Recent scientific investigation in the field of brain imaging is opening new avenues to understanding the cognitive mechanisms and neurobiological substrates of expectation-induced pain modulation. Gaining deeper knowledge of top-down mechanisms of pain modulation has enormous implications for personalizing and optimizing pain management.

Recent substantial laboratory and theoretical research hints for different learning mechanisms regulating the formation of placebo and nocebo responses. Moreover, psychological and biological variants may play a role as modulators of learning mechanisms underlying placebo and nocebo responses. In this chapter, we present pioneering and recent human and nonhuman research that has impressively increased our knowledge of learning mechanisms in the context of placebo and nocebo effects across different physiological processes and pathological conditions.