The nocebo response in pharmacologic treatments of primary headache: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Nocebo effects and influencing factors in the randomized clinical trials of chronic constipation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Nocebo effects are unavoidable in randomized clinical trials. We aimed to assess the magnitude of nocebo effects and explore the influencing factors in chronic constipation.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to July 2022. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials investigating interventions in chronic constipation were included. We conducted a random effects meta-analysis of the proportion of adverse events (AEs) in placebo-treated participants and evaluated the effect of trial characteristics on nocebo effects.

KEY RESULTS

We identified 20,204 studies from the databases, of which 61 were included in the final analysis. The pooled placebo AE rate was 30.41%, and AE-related withdrawal rate was 1.53%. The most commonly reported AEs were headache (5.67%), diarrhea (4.45%), abdominal pain (3.98%), nasopharyngitis (3.39%), nausea (3.36%), and flatulence (2.95%). The placebo AE rate was lower in trials conducted in Asia compared to those in Europe, North America, and international trials. It was also lower in trials diagnosed by Rome III compared to clinician's opinion and Rome II. Additionally, the placebo AE rate was lower in single-center trials compared to multicenter trials, lower in 5-8 weeks therapy compared to 9-12 weeks therapy, lower in participants with FC compared to those with IBS-C and CC, lower in trials with 2 arms compared to 3 arms, and higher in trials with prokinetic drugs compared to secretagogues and laxatives.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

The placebo AE rate was 30.41% in patients with chronic constipation. Based on our findings, we recommend that researchers take the nocebo effects into consideration when designing and conducting clinical trials and adopt specific measures to mitigate the negative influence of nocebo effects.

A new experimental rat model of nocebo-related nausea involving double mechanisms of observational learning and conditioning

AIM

The nocebo effect, such as nausea and vomiting, is one of the major reasons patients discontinue therapy. The underlying mechanisms remain unknown due to a lack of reliable experimental models. The goal of this study was to develop a new animal model of nocebo-related nausea by combining observational learning and Pavlovian conditioning paradigms.

METHODS

Male Sprague-Dawley rats with nitroglycerin-induced migraine were given 0.9% saline (a placebo) or LiCl (a nausea inducer) following headache relief, according to different paradigms.

RESULTS

Both strategies provoked nocebo nausea responses, with the conditioning paradigm having a greater induction impact. The superposition of two mechanisms led to a further increase in nausea responses. A preliminary investigation of the underlying mechanism revealed clearly raised peripheral and central cholecystokinin (CCK) levels, as well as specific changes in the 5-hydroxytryptamine and cannabinoid systems. Brain networks related to emotion, cognition, and visceral sense expressed higher c-Fos-positive neurons, including the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), insula, basolateral amygdala (BLA), thalamic paraventricular nucleus (PVT), hypothalamic paraventricular nucleus (PVN), nucleus tractus solitarius (NTS), periaqueductal gray (PAG), and dorsal raphe nucleus-dorsal part (DRD). We also found that nausea expectances in the model could last for at least 12 days.

CONCLUSION

The present study provides a useful experimental model of nocebo nausea that might be used to develop potential molecular pathways and therapeutic strategies for nocebo.

Placebo and nocebo in the treatment of migraine: How much does real world effectiveness depend on contextual effects?

PURPOSE

Treatments in medicine impact individuals beyond their intended effects, due to phenomena such as the placebo and nocebo effects. The placebo effect arises from the positive expectation of a treatment being beneficial, while the nocebo effect stems from the negative expectation of a treatment causing harm. Both in real-world practice and clinical trials, treatments can lead to outcomes unrelated to their intended mechanism of action, which we categorize as placebo and nocebo responses. These responses, combined with the inherent fluctuation in a condition's natural progression, regression to the mean, and random comorbidities, make up a significant part of the therapeutic experience. Particularly in pain management, placebo and nocebo effects play a substantial role. By addressing modifiable contextual factors such as patient expectations, lifestyle choices, and the therapeutic relationship, healthcare providers can enhance the effectiveness of migraine treatments, paving the way for a more comprehensive, individualized approach to patient care. We must also consider non-modifiable factors like personal experiences, beliefs, and information from social media and the internet.

CONCLUSION

This review offers a summary of our current understanding of the placebo and nocebo effects in migraine management.

[Consensus statement of the migraine and headache societies (DMKG, ÖKSG, and SKG) on the duration of pharmacological migraine prophylaxis]

Migraine is the most common neurological disorder and can be associated with a high degree of disability. In addition to non-pharmacological approaches to reduce migraine frequency, pharmacological migraine preventatives are available. Evidence-based guidelines from the German Migraine and Headache Society (DMKG), and German Society for Neurology (DGN), Austrian Headache Society (ÖKSG), and Swiss Headache Society (SKG) are available for indication and application. For therapy-relevant questions such as the duration of a pharmacological migraine prevention, no conclusions can be drawn from currently available study data. The aim of this review is to present a therapy consensus statement that integrates the current data situation and, where data are lacking, expert opinions. The resulting current recommendations on the duration of therapy for pharmacological migraine prophylaxis are shown here.

[Consensus statement of the migraine and headache societies (DMKG, ÖKSG, and SKG) on the duration of pharmacological migraine prophylaxis]

Migraine is the most common neurological disorder and can be associated with a high degree of disability. In addition to non-pharmacological approaches to reduce migraine frequency, pharmacological migraine preventatives are available. Evidence-based guidelines from the German Migraine and Headache Society (DMKG), and German Society for Neurology (DGN), Austrian Headache Society (ÖKSG), and Swiss Headache Society (SKG) are available for indication and application. For therapy-relevant questions such as the duration of a pharmacological migraine prevention, no conclusions can be drawn from currently available study data. The aim of this review is to present a therapy consensus statement that integrates the current data situation and, where data are lacking, expert opinions. The resulting current recommendations on the duration of therapy for pharmacological migraine prophylaxis are shown here.