Search

Placebo effects have been reported in patients with chronic neuropathic pain. Expected pain levels and positive emotions are involved in the observed pain relief, but the underlying neurobiology is largely unknown. Patients with neuropathic pain are highly motivated for pain relief, and as motivational factors such as expectations of reward, as well as pain processing in itself, are related to the dopaminergic system, it can be speculated that dopamine release contributes to placebo effects in neuropathic pain. Nineteen patients with neuropathic pain after thoracic surgery were tested during a placebo intervention consisting of open and hidden applications of the pain-relieving agent lidocaine (2 mL) and no treatment. The dopamine antagonist haloperidol (2 mg) and the agonist levodopa/carbidopa (100/25 mg) were administered to test the involvement of dopamine. Expected pain levels, desire for pain relief, and ongoing and evoked pain were assessed on mechanical visual analog scales (0-10). Significant placebo effects on ongoing (P ≤ 0.003) and evoked (P ≤ 0.002) pain were observed. Expectancy and desire accounted for up to 41.2% and 71.5% of the variance in ongoing and evoked pain, respectively, after the open application of lidocaine. We found no evidence for an effect of haloperidol and levodopa/carbidopa on neuropathic pain levels (P = 0.071-0.963). Dopamine seemed to influence the levels of expectancy and desire, yet there was no evidence for indirect or interaction effects on the placebo effect. This is the first study to suggest that dopamine does not contribute to placebo effects in chronic neuropathic pain.

Key Points: We analysed the placebo response at the single-neuron level in the thalamus of Parkinson patients to see the differences between first-time administration of placebo and administration after pharmacological pre-conditioning. When the placebo was given for the first time, it induced neither clinical improvement, as assessed through muscle rigidity reduction at the wrist, nor neuronal changes in thalamic neurons. However, if placebo was given after two, three or four prior administrations of an anti-Parkinson drug, apomorphine, it produced both clinical and neuronal responses. Both the magnitude and the duration of these placebo responses depended on the number of prior exposures to apomorphine, according to the rule: the greater the number of previous apomorphine administrations, the larger the magnitude and the longer the duration of the clinical and neuronal placebo responses. These findings show that learning plays a crucial role in the placebo response and suggest that placebo non-responders can be turned into placebo responders, with important clinical implications., Abstract: Placebos have been found to affect the patient's brain in several conditions, such as pain and motor disorders. For example, in Parkinson's disease, a placebo treatment induces a release of dopamine in the striatum and changes the activity of neurons in both thalamic and subthalamic nuclei. The present study shows that placebo administration for the first time induces neither clinical nor neuronal improvement in Parkinson patients who undergo implantation of electrodes for deep brain stimulation. However, this lack of placebo responsiveness can be turned into substantial placebo responses following previous exposure to repeated administrations of the anti-Parkinson agent apomorphine. As the number of apomorphine administrations increased from one to four, both the clinical response and the neuronal activity in the ventral anterior and anterior ventrolateral thalamus increased. In fact, after four apomorphine exposures, placebo administration induced clinical responses that were as large as those to apomorphine, along with long-lasting neuronal changes. These clinical placebo responses following four apomorphine administrations were again elicited after a re-exposure to a placebo 24 h after surgery, but not after 48 h. These data indicate that learning plays a crucial role in placebo responsiveness and suggest that placebo non-responders can be turned into responders, with important implications in the clinical setting., (© 2016 The Authors. The Journal of Physiology © 2016 The Physiological Society.)

Modern medicine has progressed in parallel with the advancement of biochemistry, anatomy, and physiology. By using the tools of modern medicine, the physician today can treat and prevent a number of diseases through pharmacology, genetics, and physical interventions. Besides this materia medica, the patient's mind, cognitions, and emotions play a central part as well in any therapeutic outcome, as investigated by disciplines such as psychoneuroendocrinoimmunology. This review describes recent findings that give scientific evidence to the old tenet that patients must be both cured and cared for. In fact, we are today in a good position to investigate complex psychological factors, like placebo effects and the doctor-patient relationship, by using a physiological and neuroscientific approach. These intricate psychological factors can be approached through biochemistry, anatomy, and physiology, thus eliminating the old dichotomy between biology and psychology. This is both a biomedical and a philosophical enterprise that is changing the way we approach and interpret medicine and human biology. In the first case, curing the disease only is not sufficient, and care of the patient is of tantamount importance. In the second case, the philosophical debate about the mind-body interaction can find some important answers in the study of placebo effects. Therefore, maybe paradoxically, the placebo effect and the doctor-patient relationship can be approached by using the same biochemical, cellular and physiological tools of the materia medica, which represents an epochal transition from general concepts such as suggestibility and power of mind to a true physiology of the doctor-patient interaction.

Several studies have shown that placebo analgesia effects can be obtained in healthy volunteers, as well as patients suffering from acute postoperative pain and chronic pain conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome. However, it is unknown whether placebo analgesia effects can be elicited in chronic pain conditions with a known pathophysiology such as a nerve injury. Nineteen patients who had developed neuropathic pain after thoracotomy were exposed to a placebo manipulation in which they received either open or hidden administrations of lidocaine. Before the treatment, the patients rated their levels of spontaneous pain and expected pain and completed a questionnaire on their emotional feelings (Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule) and went through quantitative sensory testing of evoked pain (brush and cold allodynia, heat pain tolerance, area of pinprick hyperalgesia, wind-up-like pain after pinprick stimulation). The placebo manipulation significantly reduced the area of pinprick hyperalgesia (P=.027), and this placebo effect was significantly related to low levels of negative affect (P=.008; R(2)=0.362) but not to positive affect or expected pain levels. No placebo effect was observed in relation to spontaneous pain or evoked pain, which is most likely due to low pain levels resulting in floor effects. This is the first study to demonstrate a placebo effect in neuropathic pain. The possible mechanisms underlying the placebo effects in hyperalgesia are discussed, and implications for treatment are outlined., (Copyright © 2012 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: In randomized clinical trials, adverse events (AEs) are reported for the drug under evaluation and compared with the placebo group. Patients who receive placebo treatment report a high frequency of AEs, but little is understood about the nature of these. No study has yet analyzed the level of cognitive impairment as a crucial aspect for the AEs reported by patients., Methods: The rates of AEs reported by patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the placebo arms of donepezil trials were compared using a systematic review approach. PubMed was searched with the terms "MCI and donepezil" as well as "AD and donepezil" from January 1989 to December 2010. Nineteen studies fulfilled the selection criteria (3 MCI, n = 783; 16 AD, n = 2,059)., Results: An overall comparison of 81 categories of AEs in the placebo arm of MCI versus AD trials showed that patients in AD trials experienced a significantly higher number of AEs than patients in MCI trials (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: This is the first study showing that AD patients may be at a greater risk of developing AEs than MCI patients. This may be related to a greater presence of somatic comorbidity predisposing them to express emotional distress as physical symptoms and/or to AD patients being frailer and therefore more susceptible to AEs. The phenomena we observed may be interpreted in terms of the "nocebo effect".

Although placebos have long been considered a nuisance in clinical research, today they represent an active and productive field of research and, because of the involvement of many mechanisms, the study of the placebo effect can actually be viewed as a melting pot of concepts and ideas for neuroscience. Indeed, there exists not a single but many placebo effects, with different mechanisms and in different systems, medical conditions, and therapeutic interventions. For example, brain mechanisms of expectation, anxiety, and reward are all involved, as well as a variety of learning phenomena, such as Pavlovian conditioning, cognitive, and social learning. There is also some experimental evidence of different genetic variants in placebo responsiveness. The most productive models to better understand the neurobiology of the placebo effect are pain and Parkinson's disease. In these medical conditions, the neural networks that are involved have been identified: that is, the opioidergic-cholecystokinergic-dopaminergic modulatory network in pain and part of the basal ganglia circuitry in Parkinson's disease. Important clinical implications emerge from these recent advances in placebo research. First, as the placebo effect is basically a psychosocial context effect, these data indicate that different social stimuli, such as words and rituals of the therapeutic act, may change the chemistry and circuitry of the patient's brain. Second, the mechanisms that are activated by placebos are the same as those activated by drugs, which suggests a cognitive/affective interference with drug action. Third, if prefrontal functioning is impaired, placebo responses are reduced or totally lacking, as occurs in dementia of the Alzheimer's type.

Despite growing interest in the placebo effect, the neural correlates of conditioned analgesia are still incompletely understood. We investigated herein on brain activity during the conditioning and post-conditioning phases of a placebo experimental paradigm, using event-related fMRI in 31 healthy volunteers. Brief laser heat stimuli delivered to one foot (either right or left) were preceded by different visual cues, signalling either painful stimuli alone, or painful stimuli accompanied by a (sham) analgesic procedure. Cues signalling the analgesic procedure were followed by stimuli of lower intensity in the conditioning session, whereas in the test session both cues were followed by painful stimuli of the same intensity. During the first conditioning trials, progressive signal increases over time were found during anticipation of analgesia compared to anticipation of pain, in a medial prefrontal focus centered on medial area BA8, and in bilateral lateral prefrontal foci. These frontal foci were adjacent to, and partially overlapped, those active during anticipation of analgesia in the test session, whose signal changes were related to the magnitude of the placebo behavioral response, and those active during placebo analgesia. Specifically, a large focus in the right prefrontal cortex showed activity related to analgesia, irrespective of the expected side of stimulation. Analgesia was also related to decreased activity, detectable immediately following noxious stimulation, in parietal, insular and cingulate pain-related clusters. Our findings of dynamic changes in prefrontal areas during placebo conditioning, and of direct placebo effects on cortical nociceptive processing, add new insights into the neural bases of conditioned placebo analgesia., (Copyright © 2010 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Conditioning procedures are used in many placebo studies because evidence suggests that conditioning-related placebo responses are usually more robust than those induced by verbal suggestions alone. However, it has not been shown whether there is a causal relation between the number of conditioning trials and the resistance to extinction of placebo and nocebo responses. Here we test the effects of either one or four sessions of conditioning on the modulation of both non-painful and painful stimuli delivered to the dorsum of the foot. Placebo and nocebo manipulations were obtained by pairing green or red light to a series of stimuli that were made lower or higher with respect to a yellow light associated with a series of control stimuli. Subjects were told that the lights would indicate a treatment that would reduce or increase non-painful and painful stimuli to the foot. They were randomly assigned to either Group 1 or 2. Group 1 underwent one session of conditioning and Group 2 received four sessions of conditioning. We found that one session of conditioning (Group 1) induced nocebo responses, but not placebo responses in no pain condition. After one session of conditioning, we observed both nocebo and placebo responses to painful stimulation. However, these effects extinguished over time. Conversely, four sessions of conditioning (Group 2) induced robust placebo and nocebo responses to both non-painful and painful stimuli that persisted over the entire experiment. These findings suggest that the strength of learning may be clinically important for producing long-lasting placebo effects., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)

For many years, placebos have been defined by their inert content and their use as controls in clinical trials and treatments in clinical practice. Recent research shows that placebo effects are genuine psychobiological events attributable to the overall therapeutic context, and that these effects can be robust in both laboratory and clinical settings. There is also evidence that placebo effects can exist in clinical practice, even if no placebo is given. Further promotion and integration of laboratory and clinical research will allow advances in the ethical use of placebo mechanisms that are inherent in routine clinical care, and encourage the use of treatments that stimulate placebo effects., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Although it has long been known that psychosocial factors play a crucial role in placebo responses, no attempt has been made to understand if social observation shapes the placebo analgesic effect. To address this question, we compared placebo analgesia induced through social observation (Group 1) with first-hand experience via a typical conditioning procedure (Group 2) and verbal suggestion alone (Group 3). In Group 1, subjects underwent painful stimuli and placebo treatment after they had observed a demonstrator (actually a simulator) showing analgesic effect when the painful stimuli were paired to a green light. In Group 2, subjects were conditioned according to previous studies, whereby a green light was associated to the surreptitious reduction of stimulus intensity, so as to make them believe that the treatment worked. In Group 3, subjects received painful stimuli and were verbally instructed to expect a benefit from a green light. Pain perception was assessed by means of a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) ranging from 0=no pain to 10=maximum imaginable pain. Empathy trait and heart rate were also measured. We found that observing the beneficial effects in the demonstrator induced substantial placebo analgesic responses, which were positively correlated with empathy scores. Moreover, observational social learning produced placebo responses that were similar to those induced by directly experiencing the benefit through the conditioning procedure, whereas verbal suggestions alone produced significantly smaller effects. These findings show that placebo analgesia is finely tuned by social observation and suggest that different forms of learning take part in the placebo phenomenon.

The recent upsurge in placebo research has demonstrated the sound neurobiological substrate of a phenomenon once believed to be only patient mystification, or at best a variable to control in clinical trials, bringing about a new awareness of its potential exploitation to the patient's benefit and framing it as a positive context effect, with the power to influence the therapy outcome. Placebo effects have been described both in the experimental setting and in different clinical conditions, many of which are of neurological interest. Multiple mechanisms have been described, namely conditioning and cognitive factors like expectation, desire, and reward. A body of evidence from neurochemical, pharmacological, and neuroimaging studies points to the involvement of neural pathways specific to single conditions, such as the activation of the endogenous antinociceptive system during placebo analgesia or the release of dopamine in the striatum of parkinsonian patients experiencing placebo reduction of motor impairment. The possible clinical applications of placebo studies range from the design of clinical trials incorporating specific recommendations and minimizing the use of placebo arms to the optimization of the context surrounding the patient, in order to maximize the placebo component present in any treatment.

Expectation and conditioning are supposed to be the two main psychological mechanisms for inducing a placebo response. Here, we further investigate the effects of both expectation, which was induced by verbal suggestion alone, and conditioning at the level of N1 and N2-P2 components of CO2 laser-evoked potentials (LEPs) and subjective pain reports. Forty-four healthy volunteers were pseudorandomly assigned to one of three experimental groups: Group 1 was tested with verbal suggestion alone, Group 2 was tested with a conditioning procedure, whereby the intensity of painful stimulation was reduced surreptitiously, so as to make the volunteers believe that the treatment was effective, Group 3 was a control group that allowed us to rule out phenomena of sensitization and/or habituation. Pain perception was assessed according to a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) ranging from 0=no pain sensation to 10=maximum imaginable pain. Both verbal suggestions (Group 1) and conditioning (Group 2) modified the N2-P2 complex, but not the N1 component of LEPs. However, the suggestion-induced LEP changes occurred without subjective perception of pain decrease. Conversely, the N2-P2 amplitude changes that were induced by the conditioning procedure were associated with the subjective perception of pain reduction. Compared to natural history, conditioning produced more robust reductions of LEP amplitudes than verbal suggestions alone. Overall, these findings indicate that prior positive experience plays a key role in maximizing both behavioral and neurophysiological placebo responses, emphasizing that the placebo effect is a learning phenomenon which affects the early central nociceptive processing.

The placebo effect has evolved from being thought of as a nuisance in clinical and pharmacological research to a biological phenomenon worthy of scientific investigation in its own right. It is now clear that the term placebo effect is too restrictive and, in fact, many placebo-related effects have recently been investigated. A placebo effect differs from a placebo-like effect in that the former follows the administration of a placebo, whereas in the latter no placebo is administered. However, in both cases, the psychosocial context around the treatment plays a key role. In recent years, placebo and placebo-related effects have been analyzed with sophisticated biological tools that have uncovered specific mechanisms at both the biochemical and cellular level. This recent research has revealed that these psychosocial-induced biochemical changes in a patient's brain and body in turn may affect the course of a disease and the response to a therapy.

Some studies indicate that placebo analgesia is stronger when pre-conditioning with effective analgesic treatments is performed, thereby suggesting that the placebo response is a learning phenomenon. Here we further tested this hypothesis in order to better understand when and how previous experience affects the placebo analgesic response. To do this, we used a conditioning procedure whereby the intensity of painful stimulation was reduced surreptitiously, so as to make the subjects believe that an analgesic treatment was effective. This procedure induced strong placebo responses after minutes, and these responses, albeit reduced, lasted up to 4-7 days. In addition, in a second group of subjects we repeated the same conditioning procedure 4-7 days after a totally ineffective analgesic treatment, and found that the placebo responses were remarkably reduced compared to the first group. Thus we obtained small, medium and large placebo responses, depending on several factors, such as the previous positive or negative experience of an analgesic treatment and the time lag between the treatment and the placebo responses. We also ran extinction trials, and found that these effects did not undergo extinction in a time span of several minutes. These findings indicate that placebo analgesia is finely tuned by prior experience and these effects may last, albeit reduced, several days. These results emphasize that the placebo effect is a learning phenomenon in which many factors come into play, and may explain the large variability of the placebo responses that is found in many studies.

Considerable progress has been made in our understanding of the neurobiological mechanisms of the placebo effect, and most of our knowledge originates from the field of pain and analgesia. Today, the placebo effect represents a promising model that could allow us to shed new light on mind-body interactions. The mental events induced by placebo administration can activate mechanisms that are similar to those activated by drugs, which indicates a similarity between psychosocial and pharmacodynamic effects. These new neurobiological advances are already changing our conception of how clinical trials and medical practice must be viewed and conducted.

Clinicians have long known that context is important in any medical treatment and that the words and attitudes of doctors and nurses can have great impact on the patient. There is now experimental evidence indicating that the medical context influences specific neural systems. The importance of the context is shown by the lesser effectiveness of hidden administrations of analgesics compared with open ones. Because the placebo effect is a context effect, its study has been useful in clarifying this complex issue. There are now several lines of evidence that placebo analgesia is mediated by endogenous opioids and placebo motor improvement by endogenous dopamine. Moreover, a placebo treatment is capable of affecting many brain regions in depressed patients. All these studies, taken together, lead to a neurobiological understanding of the events occurring in the brain during the interaction between the therapist and his or her patient.

Abstract: Open-label placebos, or placebos without deception, have been found to induce analgesia, a challenging concept that need to be investigated in detail. In particular, what we need to know is the mechanism through which analgesia is induced when no deception is involved. In this study, we show for the first time that open-label placebo analgesia can be reversed by the opioid antagonist naloxone, as already shown for deceptive placebos. To do this, we used the tourniquet technique to induce experimental ischemic arm pain. The open-label placebo challenge started when pain scores reached 7 on a 0 to 10 rating scale. Although 59.4% of the subjects did not respond to the open-label placebo, 40.6% showed a substantial response. On the basis of the natural history control group, a placebo responder reported pain scores equal to or less than 7 after 9 minutes from the open-label placebo administration. In these responders, we found that a hidden injection of 10 mg naloxone could reverse placebo analgesia compared with a hidden injection of saline solution. At least 2 control groups showed that naloxone per se was not hyperalgesic, thus ruling out naloxone-induced hyperalgesia as a confounding variable. In light of the need to better understand open-label placebo effects, these findings represent the first experimental evidence that nondeceptive placebo analgesia may be mediated by the same mechanisms as deceptive placebo analgesia, namely the endogenous opioid systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction is presented to the article "Attempting to Separate Placebo Efects from Exercise in Chronic Pain."

Background: Pain is the most disabling characteristic of musculoskeletal disorders, and while exercise is promoted as an important treatment modality for chronic musculoskeletal conditions, the relative contribution of the specific effects of exercise training, placebo effects and non-specific effects such as natural history are not clear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the relative contribution of these factors to better understand the true effect of exercise training for reducing pain in chronic primary musculoskeletal pain conditions. Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis Data Sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, EMBASE and CENTRAL from inception to February 2021. Reference lists of prior systematic reviews. Eligibility Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of interventions that used exercise training compared to placebo, true control or usual care in adults with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain. The review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42019141096). Results: We identified 79 eligible trials for quantitative analysis. Pairwise meta-analysis showed very low-quality evidence (GRADE criteria) that exercise training was not more effective than placebo (g [95% CI]: 0.94 [− 0.17, 2.06], P = 0.098, I2 = 92.46%, studies: n = 4). Exercise training was more effective than true, no intervention controls (g [95% CI]: 0.99 [0.66, 1.32], P < 0.001, I2 = 92.43%, studies: n = 42), usual care controls (g [95% CI]: 0.64 [0.44, 0.83], P < 0.001, I2 = 76.52%, studies: n = 33), and when all controls combined (g [95% CI]: 0.84 [0.64, 1.04], P < 0.001, I2 = 90.02%, studies: n = 79). Conclusions: There is very low-quality evidence that exercise training is not more effective than non-exercise placebo treatments in chronic pain. Exercise training and the associated clinical encounter are more effective than true control or standard medical care for reductions in pain for adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain, with very low quality of evidence based on GRADE criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Placebo response is a powerful determinant of health outcomes in several disorders. Meta-analysis of clinical trials in pain conditions shows that it can contribute up to 75% of the overall treatment effect. Placebo response deriving from different routes of administration is poorly understood in primary headaches' pharmacological prevention. Thus, this meta-analysis aims to analyze how different routes of administration affect the placebo response in chronic migraine (CM). We conducted a meta-analysis with 7 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials, with 5672 patients older than 18 years who suffer from CM without associated comorbidities. We compared those who received a placebo-administered agent for the preventive treatment of CM subcutaneous, endovenous, or oral against those who received multiple head injections. The primary outcome was reduction in the number of days with migraine in the month assessed at 12, 16, and 24 weeks of treatment compared with baseline. Our study shows that placebo responses were greater when botulinum toxin was applied to the head, followed by intravenous injection of the anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody eptinezumab. Oral topiramate and subcutaneous monoclonal showed no difference, being inferior to head injection. Administration route affects placebo responses in CM preventive treatment. Elucidating the underlying mechanisms that mediate a placebo response in migraine treatment is beneficial to clinical practice and drug development, especially when comparing drugs with different routes of administration, with the effect of application to the head being superior to the other routes in this study. In our study the placebo response accounted for approximately 75% of the therapeutic gain in the treatment of CM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past 30 years there has been a surge of research on the placebo effect using a neuroscientific approach. The interesting aspects of this effort are related to the identification of several biological mechanisms of both the placebo and nocebo effects, the latter of which is defined as a negative placebo effect. Some important translational implications have emerged both in the setting of clinical trials and in routine medical practice. One of the principal contributions of neuroscience has been to draw the attention of the scientific and medical communities to the important role of psychobiological factors in therapeutic outcomes, be they drug related or not. Indeed, many biological mechanisms triggered by placebos and nocebos resemble those modulated by drugs, suggesting a possible interaction between psychological factors and drug action. Unfortunately, this new knowledge regarding placebos has the potential of being dangerously exploited by pseudoscience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Participants of clinical trials who receive a placebo treatment often report a variety of adverse events, sometimes called nocebo effects. The reason why these adverse events occur is not clear, and understanding the underlying mechanisms represents a challenge that is likely to improve the interpretation of clinical trials as well as medical practice. Here, we studied 192 healthy subjects who received placebo oxygen through a mask after reading (READ) or not reading (NO‐READ) a list of possible adverse events of oxygen breathing: headache, chest pain, abdominal pain, and cough. The whole hypothalamus‐pituitary‐adrenal axis was assessed just before and right after placebo breathing by measuring the hypothalamic corticotropin‐releasing hormone (CRH), pituitary adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), and adrenal cortisol (COR). In addition, both state and trait anxiety were assessed. We found that 64.5% of the NO‐READ group reported no adverse events, 30.2% had one, and only 5.2% had two adverse events. In contrast, only 20.8% of the READ group reported no adverse events, whereas 1, 2, 3, and 4 adverse events were reported with a frequency of 21.8%, 19.8%, 19.8%, and 17.7%, respectively. In addition, when the READ group reported three and four adverse events, CRH, ACTH, and COR were significantly increased compared to the NO‐READ group, along with an increase in state anxiety scores. These data indicate that hypothalamic‐pituitary‐adrenal activity and state anxiety are increased in those subjects who report many adverse events after reading a list of adverse events, thus highlighting a possible neuroendocrine mechanism after placebo administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence from pain research shows that the effectiveness of active pharmacological treatments can be enhanced by placebo effects. The "open drug administration" is superior to "hidden drug administration.​" In a randomized controlled trial, we aimed to show that the targeted use of placebo effects increases the efficacy of an antihistamine (dimetindene) infusion in participants with atopic dermatitis. We openly infused dimetindene (drug) in full sight with information (intervention group 1: OPEN‐DRUG+INST), openly infused drug with an additional classical conditioning learning experience (intervention group 2: OPEN‐DRUG+INST+COND) or infused drug without any information or sight (i.e., hidden administration (control group 1: HIDDEN‐DRUG)). Control group 2 received a placebo infusion (saline) declared as dimetindene and also experienced the conditioning experience (PLAC+INST+COND). Itch was experimentally induced with histamine via a skin prick test. Outcome was assessed at the subjective (primary end point: experimental itch intensity, numeric rating scale), and objective level (secondary end point: wheal size, mm2). Experimental‐induced itch intensity decreased in all groups but at different rates (P < 0.001). The groups with the open administration, whether it was dimetindene or placebo, had significantly stronger reductions in itch compared to the HIDDEN‐DRUG group (OPEN‐DRUG+INST+COND: P < 0.001; OPEN‐DRUG+INST: P = 0.009; and PLAC+INST+COND: P < 0.001). Additional drug conditioning mediated via expectation led to a stronger reduction of itching (P = 0.001). Results on wheal size were similar (P = 0.048), however, no significant difference between the HIDDEN‐DRUG group and the PLAC+INST+COND group (P = 0.967) was found. We conclude that specifically generated targeted placebo effects can significantly increase the action of a drug (dimetindene) and should be used in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Placebos are fake therapies that can induce real therapeutic effects, called placebo effects. It goes without saying that what matters for inducing a placebo effect is not so much the fake treatment itself, but rather the therapeutic ritual that is carried out, which is capable of triggering psychobiological mechanisms in the patient's brain. Both laypersons and scientists often accept the phenomenon of the placebo effect with reluctance, as fiction-induced clinical improvements are at odds with common sense. However, it should be emphasized that placebo effects are not surprising after all if one considers that fiction-induced physiological effects occur in everyday life. Movies provide one of the best examples of how fictitious reality can induce psychological and physiological responses, such as fear, love, and tears. In the same way that a horror movie induces fear-related physiological responses, even though the viewer knows everything is fake, so the sight of a syringe may trigger the release of pain-relieving chemicals in the patient's brain, even if the patient knows there is a fake painkiller inside. From this perspective, placebos can be better conceptualized as rituals, actions, and fictions within a more general framework that emphasizes the power of psychological factors in everyday life, including the healing context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Harnessing placebo and nocebo effects has significant implications for research and medical practice. Placebo analgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia, the most well-studied placebo and nocebo effects, are thought to initiate from the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and then trigger the brain's descending pain modulatory system and other pain regulation pathways. Combining repeated transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), an expectancy manipulation model, and functional MRI, we investigated the modulatory effects of anodal and cathodal tDCS at the right DLPFC on placebo analgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia using a randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled design. We found that compared with sham tDCS, active tDCS could 1) boost placebo and blunt nocebo effects and 2) modulate brain activity and connectivity associated with placebo analgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia. These results provide a basis for mechanistic manipulation of placebo and nocebo effects and may lead to improved clinical outcomes in medical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The brain systems underlying placebo analgesia are insufficiently understood. Here we performed a systematic, participant-level meta-analysis of experimental functional neuroimaging studies of evoked pain under stimulus-intensity-matched placebo and control conditions, encompassing 603 healthy participants from 20 (out of 28 eligible) studies. We find that placebo vs. control treatments induce small, widespread reductions in pain-related activity, particularly in regions belonging to ventral attention (including mid-insula) and somatomotor networks (including posterior insula). Behavioral placebo analgesia correlates with reduced pain-related activity in these networks and the thalamus, habenula, mid-cingulate, and supplementary motor area. Placebo-associated activity increases occur mainly in frontoparietal regions, with high between-study heterogeneity. We conclude that placebo treatments affect pain-related activity in multiple brain areas, which may reflect changes in nociception and/or other affective and decision-making processes surrounding pain. Between-study heterogeneity suggests that placebo analgesia is a multi-faceted phenomenon involving multiple cerebral mechanisms that differ across studies. The neural mechanisms of placebo analgesia are not fully understood. Here the authors conducted a large scale meta-analysis of individual data from fMRI studies of pain and placebo conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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, stakeholders, organizations and governments should encourage the assessment of the healthcare context aimed to improve the quality of physiotherapy services. From an educational perspective, placebo and nocebo effects are professional topics that should be integrated in the university program of health and medical professions. From a research perspective, the control of placebo, nocebo and context-related effects offers to the scientific community the chance to better measure the impact of physiotherapy on different outcomes and in different conditions through primary studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Placebo and nocebo effects are a factor in sports performance. However, the majority of published studies in sport science are descriptive and speculative regarding mechanisms. It is therefore not unreasonable for the sceptic to argue that placebo and nocebo effects in sport are illusory, and might be better explained by variations in phenomena such as motivation. It is likely that, in sport at least, placebo and nocebo effects will remain in this empirical grey area until researchers provide stronger mechanistic evidence. Recent research in neuroscience has identified a number of consistent, discrete and interacting neurobiological and physiological pathways associated with placebo and nocebo effects, with many studies reporting data of potential interest to sport scientists, for example relating to pain, fatigue and motor control. Findings suggest that placebos and nocebos result in activity of the opioid, endocannabinoid and dopamine neurotransmitter systems, brain regions including the motor cortex and striatum, and measureable effects on the autonomic nervous system. Many studies have demonstrated that placebo and nocebo effects associated with a treatment, for example an inert treatment presented as an analgesic or stimulant, exhibit mechanisms similar or identical to the verum or true treatment. Such findings suggest the possibility of a wide range of distinct placebo and nocebo mechanisms that might influence sports performance. In the present paper, we present some of the findings from neuroscience. Focussing on fatigue as an outcome and caffeine as vehicle, we propose three approaches that researchers in sport might incorporate in their studies in order to better elucidate mechanisms of placebo/nocebo effects on performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In experimental placebo and nocebo studies, neutral control treatments are often administered for comparison with active treatments, but are of little interest, as, on average, they result in little change. Yet, when considered at an individual level, they fluctuate between baseline and subsequent measurements and may reveal important information about participants' placebo/nocebo responding tendencies.Methods: In a paradigm involving application of creams paired with positive, negative and neutral expectations, some subjects rated identical stimuli in the neutral condition as more painful while others as less painful after treatment with inert cream. We divided subjects into two groups based on the median split in these pre-post responses in the neutral control condition, and investigated (a) fMRI signal differences (post minus pre) between the two groups in neutral condition, and (b) seed-based resting state connectivity of the bilateral amygdala, known to be involved in emotional self-regulation, as well as ambiguous stimulus processing and aversive learning.Results: The results suggested that subjects who rated the same pain stimuli after treatment with explicitly neutral cream as more painful showed stronger fMRI activation of the amygdala during the experiment and had higher connectivity between the left amygdala and the striatum at rest. Neutral pre-post changes predicted behavioural placebo/nocebo response in this and two independent datasets.Conclusion: These findings suggest that measuring pre-post change in the neutral control condition might provide important information about subjects' individual differences in placebo/nocebo response.Significance: Pre-post changes in pain ratings in neutral conditions are modulated by amygdala activity and connectivity and can be used to predict placebo/nocebo responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This meta-analysis investigates the placebo response in generalized myasthenia gravis (MG) trials by means of Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) scores.Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, and EMBASE were searched. QMG score, dropouts rate, adverse events (AEs), and AEs responsible for dropouts were examined, together with treatment moderators.Results: The magnitude of placebo response showed an effect size of 0.24, which was significantly lower than 0.67 of the drug response (P = 0.019). Furthermore, the forest plot revealed that, overall, active treatments showed a significantly higher impact on QMG scores than placebos.Conclusions: Placebo and drug responses in MG trials are small and moderate, respectively. The lack of MG trials with a pure placebo arm or a no-treatment control arm made it impossible to disentangle improvements due to the placebo psychological effect from other effects such as natural history and/or regression to the mean. Muscle Nerve 59:671-678, 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In June 2017 a group of experts in anthropology, biology, kinesiology, neuroscience, physiology, and psychology convened in Canterbury, UK, to address questions relating to the placebo effect in sport and exercise. The event was supported exclusively by Quality Related (QR) funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). The funder did not influence the content or conclusions of the group. No competing interests were declared by any delegate. During the meeting and in follow-up correspondence, all delegates agreed the need to communicate the outcomes of the meeting via a brief consensus statement. The two specific aims of this statement are to encourage researchers in sport and exercise science to 1. Where possible, adopt research methods that more effectively elucidate the role of the brain in mediating the effects of treatments and interventions. 2. Where possible, adopt methods that factor for and/or quantify placebo effects that could explain a percentage of inter-individual variability in response to treatments and intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. © 2017 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most of the analgesic clinical trials have failed to succeed over the past years because of the occurrence of large placebo responses. Patients' expectations about the therapeutic benefit represent a major determinant of the placebo response. Therefore, assessing patients' expectations should become the rule in any clinical trial. This would allow us to better interpret therapeutic outcomes when comparing placebo and verum groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The progress of placebo research over the past years has benefited all medical sciences because of a shift in the concept of placebo from mere comparator in clinical research to phenomenon worthy of scientific inquiry by hard science. Because hard science has emphasized the biological underpinnings of expectations in the placebo response, all the proposals about new placebos are aimed at boosting the patient's expectations in order to trigger those brain mechanisms so much praised by hard science. The psychological component of some illnesses can indeed be modulated by placebos, but placebos cannot stop cancer growth, nor can they kill the bacteria of pneumonia. [Extracted from the article]

As modern research continues to unravel the details of the placebo phenomenon in CNS disorders, uncertainty about therapeutic outcomes in trials of treatments for several neurological conditions is growing. Advances in understanding the mechanisms of different placebo effects have emphasised the substantial challenges inherent in interpreting the results of CNS clinical trials. In the past few years, new mechanisms and concepts have emerged in the study of placebo, nocebo, and Hawthorne effects in CNS clinical trials. For example, the mere step of recruitment in a trial or social interaction among trial participants can change the baseline conditions and therefore affect the interpretation of therapeutic outcomes. Moreover, different genotypes have been shown to respond differently to placebos-eg, in studies of social anxiety, depression, and pain. Increasing recognition of these factors in the general population raises the question of whether attempts should be made to reduce placebo responses in CNS clinical trials. Both clinical trial design and medical practice could benefit from further investigation of these effects across a range of neuropsychiatric disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical trials use placebos with the assumption that they are inert, thus all placebos are considered to be equal. Here we show that this assumption is wrong and that different placebo procedures are associated to different therapeutic rituals which, in turn, trigger different mechanisms and produce different therapeutic outcomes. We studied high altitude, or hypobaric hypoxia, headache, in which two different placebos were administered. The first was placebo oxygen inhaled through a mask, whereas the second was placebo aspirin swallowed with a pill. Both placebos were given after a conditioning procedure, whereby either real oxygen or real aspirin was administered for three consecutive sessions to reduce headache pain. We found that after real oxygen conditioning, placebo oxygen induced pain relief along with a reduction in ventilation, blood alkalosis and salivary prostaglandin (PG)E2, yet without any increase in blood oxygen saturation (SO2). By contrast, after real aspirin conditioning, placebo aspirin induced pain relief through the inhibition of all the products of cyclooxygenase, that is, PGD2, PGE2, PGF2, PGI2, thromboxane (TX)A2, without affecting ventilation and blood alkalosis. Therefore, two different placebos, associated to two different therapeutic rituals, used two different pathways to reduce headache pain. The analgesic effect following placebo oxygen was superior to placebo aspirin. These findings show that different placebos may use different mechanisms to reduce high altitude headache, depending on the therapeutic ritual and the route of administration. In clinical trials, placebos and outcome measures should be selected very carefully in order not to incur in wrong interpretations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High-altitude, or hypobaric hypoxia, headache has recently emerged as an interesting model to study placebo and nocebo responses, and particularly their peripheral mechanisms. In this study, we analyze the response of this type of headache to either real or sham (placebo) oxygen (O(2)) administration at an altitude of 3500 m, where blood oxygen saturation (SO(2)) drops from the normal value of about 98% to about 85%. In a trial in which a double-blind administration of either 100% O(2) or sham O(2) was administered, we tested pre- and post-exercise headache, along with fatigue, heart rate (HR) responses, and prostaglandin E(2) (PGE(2)) salivary concentration. Although real O(2) breathing increased SO(2) along with a decrease in pre- and post-exercise headache, fatigue, HR, and PGE(2), placebo O(2) changed neither pre-/post-exercise headache nor SO(2)/HR/PGE(2), but it decreased fatigue. However, in another group of subjects, when sham O(2) was delivered after 2 previous exposures to O(2) (O(2) preconditioning), it decreased fatigue, post-exercise headache, HR, and PGE(2), yet without any increase in SO(2). Three main findings emerge from these data. First, placebo O(2) is effective in reducing post-exercise headache, along with HR and PGE(2) decrease, only after O(2) preconditioning. Second, pre-exercise (at rest) headache is not affected by placebo O(2), which emphasizes the limits of a placebo treatment at high altitude. Third, fatigue is affected by placebo O(2) even without prior O(2) conditioning, which suggests the higher placebo sensitivity of fatigue compared with headache pain at high altitude. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Placebos have been found to affect a number of pathological processes and physiological functions through expectations of clinical improvement. Recently, the study of the placebo effect has moved from the clinical to the physical performance setting, wherein placebos can boost performance by increasing muscle work and by decreasing perceived exertion. However, nothing is known about the neurobiological underpinnings of this phenomenon. Here we show for the first time that a placebo, which subjects believed to be endurance-increasing caffeine, reduces fatigue by acting at the central level on the preparatory phase of movement. In fact, we recorded the readiness potential, which is the expression of the preparatory phase of movement at the level of the supplementary motor area, during repeated flexions of the index finger in a control group that did not receive any treatment and in a placebo group that received placebo caffeine. In the control group, as the number of flexions increased, both fatigue and readiness potential amplitude increased. By contrast, in the placebo group, as the number of flexions increased we found a decrease in perceived exertion along with no increase in readiness potential amplitude. This placebo-induced modulation of the readiness potential suggests that placebos reduce fatigue by acting centrally during the anticipatory phase of movement, thus emphasizing the important role of the central nervous system in the generation of fatigue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Today we are witnessing a new science of placebo, a complex discipline that encompasses several experimental approaches and translational implications. Modern neurobiological tools have been used to answer important questions in placebo research, such as the top-down modulation of sensory and motor systems as well as the influence of cognition, emotions, and learning on symptoms, diseases, and responses to treatments. What we have learned is that there is not one single placebo effect, but many. This review highlights the translational implications of this new knowledge, ranging from clinical trial design to medical practice to social and ethical issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]