Search

This Perspective adapts the ViolEx Model, a framework validated in several clinical conditions, to better understand the role of expectations in the recovery and/or maintenance of musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. Here, particular attention is given to the condition in which dysfunctional expectations are maintained despite no longer being supported by confirmatory evidence (i.e., belief—lifting the arm leads to permanent tendon damage; evidence—after the patient lifts the arm no tendon damage occurs). While the ViolEx Model suggests that cognitive immunization strategies are responsible for the maintenance of dysfunctional expectations, we suggest that such phenomenon can also be understood from a Bayesian Brain perspective, according to which the level of precision of the priors (i.e., expectations) is the determinant factor accounting for the extent of priors’ updating (i.e., we merge the two frameworks, suggesting that highly precise prior can lead to cognitive immunization responses). Importantly, this Perspective translates the theory behind these two frameworks into clinical suggestions. Precisely, it is argued that different strategies should be implemented when treating MSK pain patients, depending on the nature of their expectations (i.e., positive or negative and the level of their precision).

BackgroundThe direction and the magnitude of verbal suggestions have been shown to be strong modulators of nocebo hyperalgesia, while little attention has been given to the role of their temporal content. Here, we investigate whether temporal suggestions modulate the timing of nocebo hyperalgesia in an experimental model of sustained pain. MethodsFifty-one healthy participants were allocated to one of three groups. Participants received an inert cream and were instructed that the agent had either hyperalgesic properties setting in after 5 (Nocebo 5, N5) or 30 (Nocebo 30, N30) minutes from cream application, or hydrating properties (No Expectation Group, NE). Pain was induced by the Cold Pressure Test (CPT) which was repeated before cream application (baseline) and after 10 (Test10) and 35 (Test35) minutes. Changes in pain tolerance and in HR at each test point in respect to baseline were compared between the three groups. ResultsTolerance change at Test 10 (Delta 10) was greater in N5 (MED = -36.8; IQR = 20.9) compared to NE (MED = -5.3; IQR = 22.4; p < 0.001) and N30 (MED = 0.0; IQR = 23.1; p < 0.001), showing that hyperalgesia was only present in the group that expected the effect of the cream to set in early. Tolerance change at Test 35 (Delta 35) was greater in N5 (MED = -36.3; IQR = 35.3; p = 0.002) and in N30 (MED = -33.3; IQR = 34.8; p = 0.009) compared to NE, indicating delayed onset of hyperalgesia in N30, and sustained hyperalgesia in N5. No group differences were found for HR. ConclusionsOur study demonstrated that temporal expectations shift nocebo response onset in a model of sustained pain.

Contains fulltext : 229598.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), 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 t

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 answ

Purpose: This study seeks to evaluate effects of expectations and conditioning on dry breath holding.Methods: Sixty healthy volunteers were subdivided into 3 groups and were tested across 4 breath holding trials. Participants of the Control group (C) did not undergo any manipulation. Participants of the placebo (P) and nocebo (N) groups were told that they would inhale O2 (actually sham O2) or CO2 (actually sham CO2) along with opposite information that this would enhance or worsen their breath holding time, respectively. Opposite conditioning paradigms based on false visual feedback were employed to reinforce participants' positive (placebo) and negative (nocebo) beliefs.Results: The P group showed the greater increase in breath holding time from baseline to the last trial (p = 0.0001) and the longest breath holding time in the last trial compared to the C group (p = 0.02) and the N group (p = 0.0001). Additionally, in the last trial the P group showed a greater decrease in peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) as compared to the C group (p = 0.04) and the N group (p = 0.001). Heart rate (HR) was accelerated in the N group during breath holding (in comparison to the P group [p = 0.04] and C group [p = 0.04]).Conclusions: Psychological components can affect behavioral and physiological parameters in breath holding. This study may inform future research about the role of placebo and nocebo effects for conditions in which critical functions are at play.

Background: Placebo and nocebo effects embody psychoneurobiological phenomena where behavioural, neurophysiological, perceptive and cognitive changes occur during the therapeutic encounter in the healthcare context. Placebo effects are produced by a positive healthcare context; while nocebo effects are consequences of negative healthcare context. Historically, placebo, nocebo and context-related effects were considered as confounding elements for clinicians and researchers. In the last two decades this attitude started to change, and the understanding of the value of these effects has increased. Despite the growing interest, the knowledge and the awareness of using the healthcare context to trigger placebo and nocebo effects is currently limited and heterogeneous among physiotherapists, reducing their translational value in the physiotherapy field. Objectives: To introduce the placebo, nocebo and context-related effects by: (1) presenting their psychological models; (2) describing their neurophysiological mechanisms; (3) underlining their impact for the physiotherapy profession; and (4) tracing lines for future researches. Conclusion: Several psychological mechanisms are involved in placebo, nocebo and context-related effects; including expectation, learning processes (classical conditioning and observational learning), reinforced expectations, mindset and personality traits. The neurophysiological mechanisms mainly include the endogenous opioid, the endocannabinoid and the dopaminergic systems. Neuroimaging studies have identified different brain regions involved such as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the rostral anterior cingulate cortex, the periaqueductal gray and the dorsal horn of spine. From a clinical perspective, the manipulation of the healthcare context with the best evidence-based therapy represents an opportunity to trigger placebo effects and to avoid nocebo effects respecting the ethical code of conduct. From a managerial perspective, stakeholder

Background: Placebo effects represent a major drawback in clinical trials, and their magnitude hampers the development of new treatments. Previous research showed that prior exposure to active treatments increases the placebo response for muscle rigidity in Parkinson's disease.Methods: We investigated the effects of prior exposure to apomorphine on the placebo response of another cardinal symptom of Parkinson's disease, bradykinesia, by a movement time analyzer.Results: We found no placebo response if the placebo was given for the first time, whereas the placebo response was substantial after prior pharmacological conditioning with apomorphine.Conclusions: These findings indicate that prior exposure to drugs is a critical factor in the occurrence and magnitude of placebo effects. These learning effects should be carefully assessed in clinical trials in which patients receive the active treatment first and then are randomized. Indeed, this sequence may generate high placebo responders. (c) 2017 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

BACKGROUND: The exact role of expectation in conditioned analgesia is still elusive as it is not clear whether conditioning is an automatic process or rather it is cognitively mediated. This study is aimed at understanding the role of explicit verbal information in conditioned analgesia. METHODS: Two groups of healthy subjects received a conditioning procedure whereby two visual cues were paired with increase and decrease in stimulus intensity. In the 'conditioning/verbal information' group (VER), subjects were informed about the meaning of the cues, whereas no information was given to the second group (noVER). After two conditioning blocks, an evocation session was run in which the stimulus intensity was the same, irrespective of the cues. Pain perception was assessed according to a numerical rating scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximal pain). The N2-P2 component of laser-evoked potentials (LEP) was used as an index of index of brain responses to nociceptive stimuli. RESULTS: In the evocation session, only the VER group reported a decrease in pain rating and LEP amplitude when the cues were presented, suggesting that the visual-analgesic association does not occur without explicit verbal information. CONCLUSIONS: In line with the cognitive theory of conditioning, our results indicate that just pairing a cue with different pain stimulus intensities is not sufficient, per se, to produce a learning process. What matters is the informational cognitive content of the cue, i.e. the meaning assigned to the cue itself. These findings may help understand the mechanisms of conditioned analgesia and more in general of learning.