Placebos Without Deception: Outcomes, Mechanisms, and Ethics

Placebo effects in pain

Placebo effects influence symptom perceptions and treatment outcomes. Placebo effects can be explored in laboratory settings controlling for natural history and expectations. Such a mechanistic approach to neurological disorders has been implemented in the domain of chronic clinical pain and other neurological disorders. This article therefore focuses on definitions and historical notes related to placebo effects and mechanisms of placebo effects in chronic pain. Knowledge on mechanisms of placebo effects could inform current clinical practice for the treatment of neurological disorders by focusing on patients (and providers) expectations for outcome optimization.

Behavioral Conditioning, the Placebo Effect, and Emergency Department Pain Management

Animals and humans can be readily conditioned to associate a novel stimulus (often a unique taste) by pairing it with the effects of a drug or other agent. When later presented with the stimulus alone, their body's systems respond as if the drug or agent were given. The earliest clinical applications demonstrated both conditioned suppression and enhancement of immune processes. Unique benign stimuli, paired with chemotherapy, come to elicit T-cell suppression when administered alone. The beneficial immune responses to an antigen can be conditioned in the same manner. Further study of what came to be called "psychoneuroimmunology" led to the understanding that the familiar placebo effect, previously attributed to suggestion and expectation, is at least equally dependent on the same sorts of behavioral conditioning. The demonstrated ability to manipulate the immune system by a conditioned taste stimulus is, by definition, a placebo: a therapeutic effect caused by an inactive agent. The purpose of this analysis was to stimulate research in, and the application of, placebo-response conditioning to emergency medicine. Clinical and experimental studies confirm the usefulness of conditioned placebos in analgesia and in placebo-controlled dose reduction. Such conditioning paradigms demonstrate "one-trial learning," making them potentially useful in pain and addiction management within a single emergency department encounter.

Can an Open-Label Placebo Be as Effective as a Deceptive Placebo? Methodological Considerations of a Study Protocol

Background: Placebo has been studied for many years and is ever-present in healthcare. In clinical practice, its use is limited by ethical issues raised by the deception entailed by its administration. Objective: To investigate whether, when given detailed information about pain and underlying placebo mechanisms, subjects will have a response similar to that of those subjected to a procedure in which they receive a conventional placebo treatment. Methods: The study is designed as a non-inferiority randomized, parallel with a nested crossover trial. In addition, 126 subjects without any known pathology will be included. They will be randomized into two groups. Each subject will undergo three Cold Pressor Tests (CPT): calibration, condition of interest (deceptive placebo or educated placebo), and control. Our main judgment criterion will be the comparison in pain intensity experienced on the visual analog scale between the two CPTs with placebo conditions. Results: This study will allow us to rule on the non-inferiority of an "educated" placebo compared to a deceptive placebo in the context of an acute painful stimulation. It is another step towards the understanding of open-label placebo and its use in clinical practice. Conclusions: This study has been approved by the ethics committee in France (2017-A01643-50) and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03934138).

Investigating Knowledge, Attitude, and Beliefs Regarding Placebo Interventions in Clinical Practice: A Comparative Study of Nursing and Medical University Students

BACKGROUND

Placebo interventions are commonly used in medical practice for alleviating symptoms of illnesses. Placebo is considered a pseudo-medication and its use is debatable ethically, professionally, and legally. Despite that there is also a lack of evidence on understanding of placebo interventions among health profession students. Further, no previous studies have been conducted to investigate whether future nurses and physicians differ in their knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding placebo intervention.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comparative cross-sectional study was carried out for exploring knowledge, attitude, and beliefs about placebo interventions among a convenient sample of 187 medical and nursing students at King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences. Data were collected using a sociodemographic data sheet and a 32-item placebo knowledge, beliefs, and attitude scale, which was developed from the evidence-based literature. Validity and reliability were ensured through utilizing a panel of experts and internal consistency analysis.

RESULTS

Overall mean participants' knowledge score was 7.68±2.07 (out of 15). Nursing students showed significantly higher knowledge than medical students (P=0.028). More nursing than medical students believed in the effectiveness of placebo (P˂0.001). Medical students had a stronger belief that the placebo effect is mental, while nursing students reported that it is both mental and physiologic (P˂0.006). Concerning placebo attitude, medical students significantly pointed out that it should generally be prohibited and should not be permitted unless research supports its use (P˂0.001). Both groups agreed that impure placebo intervention involves deception.

CONCLUSION

Participants' overall placebo knowledge was low. Inconsistencies in attitude and beliefs were shown among students. Current study findings offered a unique opportunity to better study misunderstandings for placebo, which might open the gate for misuse and place patients at risk of deception. Additionally, study findings were imperative as a relevant evidence-based recommendation for nursing and medical educators could be achieved.

An Exploration of Knowledge and Attitudes of Medical Students and Rheumatologists to Placebo and Nocebo Effects: Threshold Concepts in Clinical Practice

INTRODUCTION

Understanding placebo and nocebo responses (context/meaning effects [CMEs]) is fundamental to physician agency. Specific instruction in CMEs is often lacking in medical education. Patient-practitioner interactions may challenge medical students' understanding of biomedical causality and the nexus between this, practical ethics and professionalism across various conceptual and applied aspects of CMEs. This study compared the corpus of knowledge and phronesis related to CMEs between Australian graduate medical students and rheumatologists to gain a sophisticated understanding of this relationship to inform curriculum development.

METHOD

In 2013 and 2014, the authors surveyed third-year medical students undertaking a graduate programme in an Australian medical school and Australian rheumatologists to ascertain their understanding of placebo and nocebo responses. The survey ascertained (1) the alignment of the respondents' understanding of CMEs with accepted facts and concepts; (2) opinions on the ethical status of CMEs; and (3) responses to 2 scenarios designed to explore matters of biomedical causality, practical ethics and professionalism.

RESULTS

There were 88 completed surveys returned, 53 rheumatologists and 35 students. Similar proportions within each group identified CMEs, with most (n = 79/88 [89.8%]) correctly recognising a placebo (rheumatologists: 50 [94.3%], students: 29 [82.9%]) and approximately three-quarters (n = 65/88 [73.9%]) correctly recognising nocebo effects (rheumatologists: 39 [73.6%], students: 26 [74.3%]). Statistically significant differences between practitioners and students were observed in relation to the following: placebo responders and placebo responsiveness; placebos as a 'diagnostic tool'; placebos usage in clinical practice and research, and nocebo effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians require an awareness of CMEs and the fact that they arise from and influence the effective agency of health care professionals. Curricular emphasis is needed to permit an honest assessment of the components that influence when, how and why patient outcomes arise, and how one's agency might have neutral or negative effects but could be inclined towards positive and away from negative patient outcomes.

Relieving acute pain (RAP) study: a proof-of-concept protocol for a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Physicians and other prescribing clinicians use opioids as the primary method of pain management after traumatic injury, despite growing recognition of the major risks associated with usage for chronic pain. Placebos given after repeated administration of active treatments can acquire medication-like effects based on learning mechanisms. This study hypothesises that dose-extending placebos can be an effective treatment in relieving clinical acute pain in trauma patients who take opioids.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The relieving acute pain is a proof-of-concept randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, single-site study enrolling 159 participants aged from 18 to 65 years with one or more traumatic injuries treated with opioids. Participants will be randomly assigned to three different arms. Arm 1 will receive the full dose of opioids with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Arm 2 will receive the 50% overall reduction in opioid dosage, dose-extending placebos and NSAIDs. Arm 3 (control) will receive NSAIDs and placebos. The trial length will be 3 days of hospitalisation (phase I) and 2-week, 1-month, 3-month and 6-month follow-ups (exploratory phase II). Primary and secondary outcomes include feasibility and acceptability of the study. Pain intensity, functional pain, emotional distress, rates of rescue therapy requests and patient-initiated medication denials will be collected.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

All activities associated with this protocol are conducted in full compliance with the Institutional Review Board policies and federal regulations. Publishing this study protocol will enable researchers and funding bodies to stay up to date in their fields by providing exposure to research activity that may not otherwise be widely publicised.

DATE AND PROTOCOL VERSION IDENTIFIER

3/6/2019 (HP-00078742).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03426137.

Effects of a probiotic treatment (Enterococcus faecalis) and open-label placebo on symptoms of allergic rhinitis: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Several studies suggest that gut microbiota may play an important role in allergic diseases. The present trial aims to examine effects of the probiotic Enterococcus faecalis on symptoms of allergic rhinitis in patients. Effects of this probiotic on the immune system have been reported by several studies, but the majority of the previous trials were animal studies. In addition, it is well known that symptoms in allergic rhinitis are prone to exhibit high placebo responses. Moreover, recent studies report that even placebos without deception (open-label placebos) are highly effective in reducing symptoms of allergic rhinitis. Our study design combines both new approaches to assess effects on allergic symptoms in patients. The objective of this study is to compare the effects of a probiotic treatment (E. faecalis) with effects seen by open-label placebo, concealed placebo treatment and no treatment control.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A total of 120 patients with allergic rhinitis will be randomly assigned to one of four different groups: a double-blind probiotic/placebo group (groups 1 and 2), an open-label placebo group (group 3) and a no-treatment group (group 4) to control for spontaneous variation of symptoms. The primary outcome is the evaluation of allergic symptoms using the Combined Symptoms Medication Score. Furthermore, health-related quality of life is examined (Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire). Secondary outcomes include a visual analogue scale on allergic burden and a second quality of life questionnaire. This report describes the study design of the randomised controlled trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study design was approved by the ethical committee of the UKT Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Tübingen, Germany. The trial is registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (www.drks.de, DRKS00015804). The trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and at conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

German Clinical Trials Register (www.drks.de, DRKS00015804); Pre-results.

Open-label placebos reduce test anxiety and improve self-management skills: A randomized-controlled trial

Test anxiety is a condition in which people experience extreme distress and anxiety before and in test situations. It affects up to 40 percent of all students. Conventional treatment includes both medication and psychotherapy, but studies also demonstrated that placebos affect anxiety symptoms. Although in the traditional understanding placebos need to be administered in a concealed way, intriguing new studies report that open-label placebos can be effective. Since prescription of fake pills involves ethical problems, open-label placebos may provide important new treatment possibilities. Here we report results of a pilot study examining whether open-label placebos may reduce test anxiety and improve self-management skills. 58 students participated in a two-group randomized controlled trial. Two weeks before an exam at the university participants received open-label placebos or no pills (control group). Participant – provider relationship and amount of contact time was held similar for all groups. After two weeks we found that test anxiety and self-management abilities (skills and resources) of the open-label placebo group were more improved than in the control group. Thus, our results seems to indicate that open-label placebos may reduce test anxiety and enhance self-management skills in students.

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

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

Non-concealed placebo treatment for menopausal hot flushes: Study protocol of a randomized-controlled trial

Background

Beneficial effects of placebos are high in double-blind hot flush trials. Studies in various conditions suggest that honestly prescribed placebos may elicit symptom improvement.

Objective

To determine whether open label placebo (OLP) treatment is efficacious in alleviating hot flushes among peri- and postmenopausal women.

Methods/design

In this assessor-blinded, randomized-controlled trial, n = 100 women experiencing five or more daily hot flushes of at least moderate severity and bothersomeness are assigned 1:1 to a 4-week OLP treatment or no treatment. To explore the duration and maintenance of placebo effects, the OLP group is randomized a second time to either discontinue or continue the OLP treatment for another 4 weeks. All participants receive a briefing about placebo effects and study visits at baseline, post-treatment (4 weeks), and follow-up (8 weeks, OLP group only). Qualitative interviews about subjective experiences with the OLP treatment are conducted.

Primary outcomes are differences between the OLP and the no-treatment group in the hot flush composite score (frequency × severity), and bothersomeness of hot flushes as assessed with the Hot Flush Rating Scale at post-treatment. Secondary outcomes include hot flush frequency, health-related quality of life, global improvement, and the number of responders at post-treatment. Data are analyzed by fitting (generalized) linear mixed models. An exploratory analysis of maintenance and duration is performed including follow-up data.

Discussion

This trial will contribute to the evaluation of OLP treatments in clinical practice and further our understanding about the magnitude of placebo effects in hot flush treatments.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03838523. Retrospectively registered on February 12th, 2019. The first patient was enrolled on October 10th, 2018.

Placebos in the era of open-label trials: An update for clinicians

Placebos have been used extensively by vast numbers of physicians, in a majority of clinical trials. Placebo effects involve behavioural, psychological and genetic factors and have been subject to ethical controversies stemming from the use of deception in treating patients. The patient-physician encounter, endogenous pharmacological pathways, personality traits and genetic diversity have all been reported to be key players in placebo responses. In the last decade, a new methodological paradigm of placebo research has emerged, using open-label placebos to investigate their effects which showed promising results for various common medical conditions. In this review, we will summarize the current body of evidence on placebos in clinical practice, with a view to open-label placebo trials in particular. It is our view that future larger-scale randomized blinded open placebo trials will benefit physicians and improve patient outcomes.

A discursive exploration of public perspectives on placebos and their effects

There is increasing evidence that placebos could be effective in clinical practice. However, knowledge of public perspectives on placebos is underdeveloped. We conducted a discourse analysis of internet comments on news articles related to placebos, aiming to improve this knowledge for clinicians and researchers. We developed two discursive constructs of the placebo. The dominant construct of the 'placebo pill' informs a paradoxical understanding of placebos that closes down treatment. The less-prevalent counter-discursive construct of the 'treatment process' frames placebos as potentially viable within modern evidence-based medicine. We discuss the opportunities and challenges of this alternative understanding of placebos.

The Placebo Effect in Pain Therapies

Pharmacological strategies for pain management have primarily focused on dampening ascending neurotransmission and on opioid receptor-mediated therapies. Little is known about the contribution of endogenous descending modulatory systems to clinical pain outcomes and why some patients are mildly affected while others suffer debilitating pain-induced dysfunctions. Placebo effects that arise from patients' positive expectancies and the underlying endogenous modulatory mechanisms may in part account for the variability in pain experience and severity, adherence to treatment, distinct coping strategies, and chronicity. Expectancy-induced analgesia and placebo effects in general have emerged as useful models to assess individual endogenous pain modulatory systems. Different systems and mechanisms trigger placebo effects that highly impact pain processing, clinical outcomes, and sense of well-being. This review illustrates critical elements of placebo mechanisms that inform the methodology of clinical trials, the discovery of new therapeutic targets, and the advancement of personalized pain management.

Pain Modulation: From Conditioned Pain Modulation to Placebo and Nocebo Effects in Experimental and Clinical Pain

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.

Clinical Use of Placebo Effects in Patients With Pain Disorders

The analgesic placebo effect is well documented by numerous studies. Many important influencing factors, however, are yet to be discovered. In the arena of placebo effects and clinical implications, expectancies play a central role. Expectancies are shaped by processes of classical and social learning as well as verbal instructions and are strongly related to emotional factors. Expectancies trigger a cascade of endogenous opioids and non-opioids, which alter the experience of pain. For clinical application it is important to know, that placebo research yields ethical possibilities to use placebo effects without deception and without using placebos. Since placebo effects contribute to responses to active analgesics, it is feasible to enhance patients' benefits from pain treatments by increasing the additional placebo effect. There are several possibilities to use the placebo effects via shaping and adapting information about analgesic medication and via associating medication intake with a positive context. A positive patient-clinician communication atmosphere is very important to generate clinically meaningful placebo effects in pain medicine.

Implications of Placebo and Nocebo Effects for Clinical Practice: Expert Consensus

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.