Search

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

No large-cohort studies that examine potential racial effects on placebo hypoalgesic effects exist. To fill this void, we studied placebo effects in healthy and chronic pain participants self-identified as either African American/black (AA/black) or white. We enrolled 372 study participants, 186 with a diagnosis of temporomandibular disorder (TMD) and 186 race-, sex-, and age-matched healthy participants to participate in a placebo experiment. Using a well-established paradigm of classical conditioning with verbal suggestions, each individual pain sensitivity was measured to calibrate the temperatures for high- and low-pain stimuli in the conditioning protocol. These 2 temperatures were then paired with a red and green screen, respectively, and participants were told that the analgesic intervention would activate during the green screens to reduce pain. Participants then rated the painfulness of each stimulus on a visual analog scale ranging from 0 to 100. Racial influences were tested on conditioning strength, reinforced expectations, and placebo hypoalgesia. We found that white participants reported greater conditioning effects, reinforced relief expectations, and placebo effects when compared with their AA/black counterparts. Racial effects on placebo were observed in TMD, although negligible, short-lasting, and mediated by conditioning strength. Secondary analyses on the effect of experimenter-participant race and sex concordance indicated that same experimenter-participant race induced greater placebo hypoalgesia in TMDs while different sex induced greater placebo hypoalgesia in healthy participants. This is the first and largest study to analyze racial effects on placebo hypoalgesia and has implications for both clinical research and treatment outcomes.

Although critical for informed consent, side effect warnings can contribute directly to poorer patient outcomes because they often induce negative expectations that trigger nocebo side effects. Communication strategies that reduce the development of nocebo side effects whilst maintaining informed consent are therefore of considerable interest. We reviewed theoretical and empirical evidence for the use of framing strategies to achieve this. Framing refers to the way in which information about the likelihood or significance of side effects is presented (e.g., negative frame: 30% will experience headache vs. positive frame: 70% will not experience headache), with the rationale that positively framing such information could diminish nocebo side effects. Relatively few empirical studies (k = 6) have tested whether framing strategies can reduce nocebo side effects. Of these, four used attribute framing and two message framing. All but one of the studies found a significant framing effect on at least one aspect of side effects (e.g., experience, attribution, threat), suggesting that framing is a promising strategy for reducing nocebo effects. However, our review also revealed some important open questions regarding these types of framing effects, including, the best method of communicating side effects (written, oral, pictorial), optimal statistical presentation (e.g., frequencies vs. percentages), whether framing affects perceived absolute risk of side effects, and what psychological mechanisms underlie framing effects. Future research that addresses these open questions will be vital for understanding the circumstances in which framing are most likely to be effective.

Contains fulltext : 200176.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), 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.

A crucial question in placebo research is related to which conditions and physiological functions are affected by placebos. Here we present evidence that critical life functions, like ventilation, oxygenation, circulation, and perfusion, can be sensitive to placebo treatments in some circumstances. Indeed, we have investigated the role of placebo effects at an altitude of 3500 m, where oxygen pressure is 64% compared to the sea level. In these extreme conditions, hypoxia triggers several compensatory responses, such as hyperventilation, increased cardiac output, and increased brain perfusion. A conditioned placebo procedure was found to mimic the effects of oxygen on these compensatory responses, and these effects are still present at altitudes as high as 4500 and 5500 m, where oxygen pressure is only 57% and 50%, respectively, compared to the sea level. Thus, placebo effects also take place for those functions that are critical for life and whereby oxygen is the key element

Contains fulltext : 184205.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), The aim of this study was to examine the relationships among classical conditioning, expectancy, and fear in placebo analgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia. A total of 42 healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to three groups: placebo, nocebo, and control. They received 96 electrical stimuli, preceded by either orange or blue lights. A hidden conditioning procedure, in which participants were not informed about the meaning of coloured lights, was performed in the placebo and nocebo groups. Light of one colour was paired with pain stimuli of moderate intensity (control stimuli), and light of the other colour was paired with either nonpainful stimuli (in the placebo group) or painful stimuli of high intensity (in the nocebo group). In the control group, both colour lights were followed by control stimuli of moderate intensity without any conditioning procedure. Participants rated pain intensity, expectancy of pain intensity, and fear. In the testing phase, when both of the coloured lights were followed by identical moderate pain stimuli, we found a significant analgesic effect in the placebo group, and a significant hyperalgesic effect in the nocebo group. Neither expectancy nor fear ratings predicted placebo analgesia or nocebo hyperalgesia. It appears that a hidden conditioning procedure, without any explicit verbal suggestions, elicits placebo and nocebo effects, however we found no evidence that these effects are predicted by either expectancy or fear. These results suggest that classical conditioning may be a distinct mechanism for placebo and nocebo effects.

Numerous studies indicate that placebo analgesia can be established via conditioning procedures. However, these studies have exclusively involved conditioning under continuous reinforcement. Thus, it is currently unknown whether placebo analgesia can be established under partial reinforcement and how durable any such effect would be. We tested this possibility using electrocutaneous pain in healthy volunteers. Sixty undergraduates received placebo treatment (activation of a sham electrode) under the guise of an analgesic trial. The participants were randomly allocated to different conditioning schedules, namely continuous reinforcement (CRF), partial reinforcement (PRF), or control (no conditioning). Conditioning was achieved by surreptitiously reducing pain intensity during training when the placebo was activated compared with when it was inactive. For the CRF group, the placebo was always followed by a surreptitious reduction in pain during training. For the PRF group, the placebo was followed by a reduction in pain stimulation on 62.5% of trials only. In the test phase, pain stimulation was equivalent across placebo and no placebo trials. Both CRF and PRF produced placebo analgesia, with the magnitude of initial analgesia being larger after CRF. However, although the placebo analgesia established under CRF extinguished during test phase, the placebo analgesia established under PRF did not. These findings indicate that PRF can induce placebo analgesia and that these effects are more resistant to extinction than those established via CRF. PRF may therefore reflect a novel way of enhancing clinical outcomes via the placebo effect. © 2014 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Review for Placebo and Pain: "This ambitious book is the first comprehensive and unified presentation of the placebo and nocebo phenomena in the area of pain.