Nocebo response in Parkinson's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Characteristics of responders to interventions for Parkinson disease: a scoping systematic review

AIMS

The purpose of this review is to identify the characteristics of responders in interventions targeting motor function for individuals with Parkinson disease.

MATERIALS & METHODS

The primary search included, 'Parkinson' + 'responder.' A second, broader, search further included 'response' + 'responsiveness' + 'responsive.' Records were sorted by intervention: neuromodulation, pharmaceutical, physical, and placebo.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were identified in the primary and 19 studies in the secondary search, culminating in 120 characteristics. For neuromodulation interventions, responders were younger at onset, more responsive to levodopa, and had more difficulties with activities of daily living. Responders to pharmaceuticals were younger at diagnosis. Physical intervention responders had worse balance, less balance confidence, and worse cognition. No relevant characteristics were identified for placebo interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there are clear limitations and gaps in the literature, responder analyses represent an important step toward more personalized treatments for the motor symptoms of Parkinson disease.

Risk factors associated with nocebo effects: A review of reviews

Objective

This meta-review aims to identify and categorize the risk factors that are associated with nocebo effects. The nocebo effect can exert a negative impact on treatment outcomes and have detrimental outcomes on health. Learning more about its potential predictors and risk factors is a crucial step to mitigating it.

Methods

Literature review studies about the risk factors for nocebo effects were searched through five databases (PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and Embase) and through grey literature. Methodological validity and risk of bias were assessed. We conducted a thematic analysis of the results of the forty-three included reviews.

Results

We identified nine categories of risk factors: prior expectations and learning; socio-demographic characteristics; personality and individual differences; neurodegenerative conditions; inflammatory conditions; communication of information and patient-physician relationship; drug characteristics; setting; and self-awareness. We also highlighted the main biochemical and neurophysiological mechanisms underlying nocebo effects.

Conclusions

Nocebo effects arise from expectations of adverse symptoms, particularly when triggered by previous negative experiences. A trusting relationship with the treating physician and clear, tailored treatment instructions can act as protective factors against a nocebo effect. Clinical implications are discussed.

Placebo and Nocebo Responses in Pharmacological Trials of Tic Disorders: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials of new drugs for tic disorders (TD) often fail to yield positive results. Placebo and nocebo responses play a vital role in interpreting the outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), yet these responses in RCTs of TD remain unexplored.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to assess the magnitude of placebo and nocebo responses in RCTs of pharmacological interventions for TD and identify influencing factors.

METHODS

A systematic search of the Embase, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO databases was conducted. Eligible studies were RCTs that compared active pharmacological agents with placebos. Placebo response was defined as the change from baseline in TD symptom severity in the placebo group, and nocebo response as the proportion experiencing adverse events (AEs) in this group. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were performed to explore modifying factors.

RESULTS

Twenty-four trials involving 2222 participants were included in this study. A substantial placebo response in TD symptom severity was identified, with a pooled effect size of -0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.99 to -0.59; I2 = 67%). Forty-four percent (95% CI 27% to 63%; I2 = 92%) of patients experienced AEs while taking inert pills. Sample size, study design, and randomization ratio were correlated with changes in placebo and nocebo responses.

CONCLUSION

There were considerable placebo and nocebo responses in TD clinical trials. These results are of great relevance for the design of future trials and for clinical practice in TD.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration ID CRD42023388397. © 2024 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

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.

Nocebo Response in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression of 105 Randomized Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE

To determine nocebo response in ADHD, identify covariates modifying nocebo response, and study the relationship between nocebo response and drug safety.

METHOD

Systematic review of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCT) investigating the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for ADHD patients. The influence of covariates was studied using meta-regression.

RESULTS

A total of 105 studies with 8,743 patients in placebo arms were included. Slightly over half (55.5%) of the patients experienced adverse events (AE) while receiving placebo. Nocebo response was associated positively with age, treatment length and method for collecting AEs. Studies with the largest nocebo response showcased the greatest drug response and the best outcome for drug safety.

CONCLUSION

Nocebo response in ADHD RCTs is remarkable, showing a positive relationship with drug response, and a negative relationship with drug safety.

Nocebo effects on motor performance: A systematic literature review

Directionally opposite to placebo effects are the nocebo effects that negatively impact people's thoughts, feelings, and actions. An important but scarcely studied aspect of everyday functioning is motor performance, in which nocebo effects might impair athletic skills and the much-needed purposeful daily movements and motor actions. The aim of this literature review is to unveil the nocebo effects on motor performance. Searched databases were PubMed, PsycINFO, and SPORTDiscus. Twenty-one articles, reporting 23 studies, met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the current review. All reports exhibited "some" risk of bias. Of the 23 studies, 14 found a nocebo effect on motor performance, equivocal results emerged from two studies, and negative findings were reported in seven studies. Most (10/12) studies using a between-subjects design have reported a nocebo effect. The mean effect size was 0.60, suggesting a medium-to-large effect of nocebo intervention on motor performance. Based on this review, we conclude that nocebo effects do influence motor performance and can be evoked with negative verbal information. This effect may be more robust than the placebo effect but also depends on the type of motor performance, on the examined sample, and on the nocebo agent. Hence, nocebo effects should be recognized and controlled in empirical research on motor performance, and they should be prevented or extinguished in practical and therapeutic settings. More extensive examination of the nocebo effect on motor performance is warranted, especially using between-subjects research design and a "no agent" control condition.

Botulinum toxin type A versus anticholinergics for cervical dystonia

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. Cervical dystonia is the most common form of focal dystonia and is a highly disabling movement disorder, characterised by involuntary, usually painful, head posturing. Currently, botulinum toxin type A (BtA) is considered the first line therapy for this condition. Before BtA, anticholinergics were the most widely accepted treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BtA versus anticholinergic drugs in adults with cervical dystonia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Movement Disorders' Trials Register to June 2003, screened reference lists of articles and conference proceedings to September 2018, and searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase, with no language restrictions, to July 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Double-blind, parallel, randomised trials (RCTs) of BtA versus anticholinergic drugs in adults with cervical dystonia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed records, selected included studies, extracted data using a paper pro forma, and evaluated the risk of bias and quality of the evidence. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third review author. If enough data had been available, we were to perform meta-analyses using a random-effects model for the comparison of BtA versus anticholinergic drugs to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The primary efficacy outcome was improvement in cervical dystonia-specific impairment. The primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with any adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one RCT of moderate overall risk of bias (as multiple domains were at unclear risk of bias), which included 66 BtA-naive participants with cervical dystonia. Two doses of BtA (Dysport; week 0 and 8; mean dose 262 to 292 U) were compared with daily trihexyphenidyl (up to 24 mg daily). The trial was sponsored by the BtA producer. BtA reduced cervical dystonia severity by an average of 2.5 points (95% CI 0.68 to 4.32) on the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) severity subscale 12 weeks after injection, compared to trihexyphenidyl. More participants reported adverse events in the trihexyphenidyl treatment group (76 events), compared with the BtA group (31 events); however, the difference in dropouts due to adverse events was inconclusive between groups. There was a decreased risk of dry mouth, and memory problems with BtA, but the differences were inconclusive between groups for the other reported side effects (blurred vision, dizziness, depression, fatigue, pain at injection site, dysphagia, and neck weakness).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low-certainty evidence that BtA is more effective, better tolerated, and safer than trihexyphenidyl. We found no information on a dose-response relationship with BtA, differences between BtA formulations or different anticholinergics, the utility of electromyography-guided injections, or the duration of treatment effect.

Parkinson's Disease Drug Development Since 1999: A Story of Repurposing and Relative Success

Background:

A global overview of drug development programs in Parkinson’s disease over the last few decades is lacking, while such programs are challenging given the multifaceted and heterogeneous nature of the disease.

Objective:

To indirectly assess drug development programs in Parkinson’s disease, exploring some factors associated with compound attrition at different trial phases.

Methods:

We assessed all Parkinson’s disease trials in the WHO trials portal, from inception (1999) to September 2019. Independent authors selected trials and extracted data. The success rate was the number of compounds that progressed to the next drug development phase divided by the number of compounds in that phase.

Results:

Overall, 357 trials (studying 152 compounds) fulfilled our inclusion criteria, with 62 (17.3%) phase 1 trials, 135 (37.8%) phase 2 trials, 85 (23.8%) phase 3 trials, and 53 (14.8%) phase 4 trials. The success rate was 42.4% from phase 2 to 3. Original compounds received regulatory approval by the FDA in 21.4% of cases, compared with 6.7% of repurposed compounds, representing an overall success rate of 14.9%. We found 172 trials (48.2%) conducted for repurposing previously licensed compounds. These figures were approximately the same regarding approval by the EMA. Most compounds were approved to treat parkinsonism and motor fluctuations.

Conclusion:

We found a moderate-to-high success rate in all phases of drug development. This was largely based on the success of original compounds, despite almost half of the identified trials attempting compound repurposing.

Botulinum toxin type A therapy for blepharospasm

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. Blepharospasm is the second most common form of focal dystonia. It is a disabling disorder, characterised by chronic, intermittent or persistent, involuntary eyelid closure, due to spasmodic contractions of the orbicularis oculi muscles. Currently, botulinum toxin type A (BtA) is considered the first line of therapy for this condition.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BtA versus placebo in people with blepharospasm.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Movement Disorders' Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, reference lists of included articles, and conference proceedings. We ran all elements of the search, with no language restrictions, in July 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Double-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of BtA versus placebo in adults with blepharospasm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed records, selected included studies, extracted data using a paper pro forma, and evaluated the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus, or by consulting a third review author. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model, for the comparison of BtA versus placebo, to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We did not carry out any prespecified subgroup analyses. The primary efficacy outcome was improvement on any validated symptomatic rating scale. The primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with any adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs, assessed at low to moderate overall risk of bias, which randomised 313 participants with blepharospasm. Two studies excluded participants with poorer prior responses to BtA treatment, therefore, they included an enriched population with a higher probability of benefiting from this therapy. All trials were industry-funded. All RCTs evaluated the effect of a single BtA treatment session. BtA resulted in a moderate to large improvement in blepharospasm-specific severity, with a reduction of 0.93 points on the Jankovic Rating Scale (JRS) severity subscale at four to six weeks after injection (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.25; I² = 9%) compared to placebo. BtA was also resulted in a moderate to large improvement in blepharospasm-specific disability and blepharospasm-specific involuntary movements at four to six weeks after injection (disability: 0.69 JRS disability subscale points, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.19; I² = 74%; blepharospasm-specific involuntary movements: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.79, 0.31 to 1.27; I² = 58%) compared to placebo. BtA did not show a risk of adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.60; I² = 0%). However, BtA increased the risk of vision complaints and eyelid ptosis (vision complaints: RR 5.73, 95% CI 1.79 to 18.36; I² = 51%; eyelid ptosis: RR 4.02, 95% CI 1.61 to 10.00; I² = 39%). There was no distinction between BtA and placebo in the number of participants who dropped out of the trial. A single trial estimated the duration of effects to be 10.6 weeks (range 6.1 to 19.1). We found no evidence supporting the existence of a clear dose-response relationship with BtA. We found no data reporting the impact of BtA on health-related quality of life, or the development of secondary non-responsiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are moderately certain that a single BtA treatment resulted in a clinically relevant reduction of blepharospasm-specific severity and disability, and have low certainty that it is well tolerated, when compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that people treated with BtA are not at an increased risk of developing adverse events, though BtA treatment likely increases the risk of visual complaints and eyelid ptosis. There are no data from RCTs evaluating the effectiveness and safety of repeated BtA injection cycles. There is no evidence from RCTs to allow us to draw definitive conclusions on the optimal treatment intervals and doses, or the impact on quality of life.

Botulinum toxin type A therapy for hemifacial spasm

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane Review, first published in 2005. Hemifacial spasm (HFS) is characterised by unilateral, involuntary contractions of the muscles innervated by the facial nerve. It is a chronic disorder, and spontaneous recovery is very rare. The two treatments routinely available are microvascular decompression and intramuscular injections with botulinum toxin type A (BtA).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BtA versus placebo in people with HFS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, reference lists of articles, and conference proceedings in July 2020. We ran the electronic database search, with no language restrictions, in July 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Double-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of BtA versus placebo in adults with HFS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed records. We planned to select included studies, extract data using a paper pro forma, and evaluate the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus, or by consulting a third review author. We planned to perform meta-analyses. The primary efficacy outcome was HFS-specific improvement. The primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with any adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no parallel-group randomised controlled trials comparing BtA and placebo in HFS.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find any randomised trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin type A in people with hemifacial spasm, so we are unable to draw any conclusions. Observational data show a strong association between BtA treatment and symptom improvement, and a favourable safety profile. While it is unlikely that future placebo-controlled RCTs will evaluate absolute efficacy and safety, they should address relevant questions for both people with HFS (such as long-term effects, quality of life, and other patient-reported outcomes), and clinicians (such as relative effectiveness of different BtA formulations and schemes of treatment) to better guide clinical practice.).

Botulinum toxin type A therapy for cervical dystonia

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. Cervical dystonia is the most common form of focal dystonia, and is a highly disabling movement disorder, characterised by involuntary, usually painful, head posturing. Currently, botulinum toxin type A (BtA) is considered the first line therapy for this condition.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BtA versus placebo, in people with cervical dystonia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Movement Disorders' Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, reference lists of articles, and conference proceedings in July 2020. All elements of the search, with no language restrictions, were last run in July 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Double-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of BtA versus placebo in adults with cervical dystonia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed records, selected included studies, extracted data using a paper pro forma, and evaluated the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third review author. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model, for the comparison of BtA versus placebo, to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We performed preplanned subgroup analyses according to BtA dose used, the BtA formulation used, and the use (or not) of guidance for BtA injections. The primary efficacy outcome was improvement in cervical dystonia-specific impairment. The primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with any adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs, with moderate, overall risk of bias, that included 1144 participants with cervical dystonia. Seven studies excluded participants with poorer responses to BtA treatment, therefore, including an enriched population with a higher probability of benefiting from this therapy. Only one trial was independently funded. All RCTs evaluated the effect of a single BtA treatment session, using doses from 150 U to 500 U of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox), 120 U to 240 U of incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin), and 250 U to 1000 U of abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport). BtA resulted in a moderate to large improvement from the participant's baseline clinical status, assessed by the investigators, with a mean reduction of 8.09 points in the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS total score) at week four after injection (95% CI 6.22 to 9.96; I² = 0%) compared to placebo. This corresponded, on average, to a 18.4% improvement from baseline. The mean difference (MD) in TWSTRS pain subscore at week four was 2.11 (95% CI 1.38 to 2.83; I² = 0%) compared to placebo. Overall, both participants and clinicians reported an improvement of subjective clinical status. It was unclear if dropouts due to adverse events differed (risk ratio (RR) 2.51; 95% CI 0.42 to 14.94; I² = 0%) However, BtA treatment increased the risk of experiencing an adverse event (R) 1.23; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.43; I² = 28%). Neck weakness (14%; RR 3.40; 95% CI 1.19 to 9.71; I² = 15%), dysphagia (11%; RR 3.19; 95% CI 1.79 to 5.70; I² = 0%), and diffuse weakness or tiredness (8%; RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.10 to 2.95; I² = 0%) were the most common treatment-related adverse events. Treatment with BtA resulted in a decreased risk of dropouts. We have moderate certainty in the evidence across all of the aforementioned outcomes, with the exception of subjective assessment and tolerability, in which we have high confidence in the evidence. We found no evidence supporting the existence of a clear dose-response relationship between BtA and improvement in cervical dystonia-specific impairment, a destinction between BtA formulations, or a variation with use of EMG-guided injection for efficacy outcomes. Due to clinical heterogeneity, we did not pool health-related quality of life data, duration of clinical effect, or the development of secondary non-responsiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are moderately certain in the evidence that a single BtA treatment session resulted in a clinically relevant reduction of cervical dystonia-specific impairment, and pain, and highly certain that it is well tolerated, compared with placebo. There is moderate-certainty evidence that people treated with BtA are at an increased risk of developing adverse events, most notably, dysphagia, neckweakness and diffuse weakness or tiredness. There are no data from RCTs evaluating the effectiveness and safety of repeated BtA injection cycles. There is no evidence from RCTs to allow us to draw definitive conclusions on the optimal treatment intervals and doses, the usefulness of guidance techniques for injection, the impact on quality of life, or the duration of treatment effect.

Nocebo phenomena may be enhanced in aging: Implications for clinical practice

Nocebo effects, denoting unfavourable outcomes after a medical intervention because of negative expectations rather than a direct pharmacologic action, are an important cause of dropout from clinical trials and non-adherence to medication, and may be especially pertinent for older adults. Several characteristics of aging individuals and their medical care have a potential to augment nocebo susceptibility, such as depression and anxiety, neurodegenerative diseases and chronic pain states, adverse healthcare experiences, generic drug use, age-related stereotypes, and strained patient-physician communication. Nocebo-related research in older adults is hindered by under-representation in clinical trials, medical complexity of geriatric patients, and lack of validated tools to accurately assess susceptibility and efficacy of preventive efforts.

Maximizing placebo response in neurological clinical practice

The placebo effect is a widely recognized phenomenon in clinical research, with a negative perception that it could hide the "true" drug effect. In clinical care its positive potential to increase known drug effects has been neglected for too long. The placebo and nocebo responses have been described in many neurologic disorders such as Parkinson's, Huntington's and Alzheimer's diseases, restless leg syndrome, tics, essential tremor, dystonia, functional movement disorders, neuropathic pain, headaches, migraine, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, multiple sclerosis and epilepsy. Knowledge regarding placebo mechanisms and their consequences on clinical outcome have greatly improved over the last two decades. This evolution has led to reconsiderations of the importance of placebo response in the clinic and has given several clues on how to improve it in daily practice. In this chapter, we first illustrate "why," e.g. the reasons (relevance to clinical practice, help in differential diagnosis/treatment of psychogenic movements, clinical impact, proven neurobiological grounds, health economic potential), and "how," e.g. the means (increase patients' knowledge, increase learning, improve patient-doctor relationship, increase Hawthorne effect, increase positive/decrease negative expectations (the Rosenthal effect), personalize placebo response), the placebo should be maximized (and nocebo avoided) in neurological clinical practice. Future studies regarding more specific neurobiological mechanisms will allow a finer tuning of placebo response in clinical practice. The use of placebo in clinical practice raises ethical issues, and a recent expert consensus regarding placebo use in the clinic is a first step to future guidelines necessary to this field.

Nocebo and lessebo effects

The power of placebos is commonly associated with the placebo effect. In contrast, detrimental effects related to the use of a placebo are little studied and less well recognized. This chapter covers the nocebo and lessebo effects defined, respectively, as expectation of harm in the form of adverse events in a placebo arm and reduction of therapeutic benefit due to the uncertainty of being allocated to placebo. The lessebo effect is a more recent concept and has been described only in depression, schizophrenia and Parkinson's disease. The nocebo response was evaluated in many neurological diseases, including epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, restless leg syndrome, among others. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials in these conditions reveal a significant variability of the magnitude of the nocebo response and that factors related to study design, study participants or neurological disease can be associated with a nocebo response, although with the opposing findings across conditions. The knowledge about neurobiological mechanisms of the nocebo effect is poor for neurological diseases, and most of the information has been generated in pain. Functional neuroimaging suggests the existence of a distinct network for the anticipation and the experience of a hyperalgesia nocebo response. Different types of neurotransmitters have been involved, including cholecystokinin, dopamine and opioids. Recognizing the potential impact of nocebo and lessebo effects, mitigating strategies are in development with application to clinical research and clinical practice, such as a contextualized informed consent process, alternative study designs and enhancement of patient-physician communication.

Measurement Instruments to Assess Functional Mobility in Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Functional mobility (FM) is a person's ability to move to accomplish activities of daily living; it bridges the concepts of mobility and functional ability. There is frequently a loss of FM in Parkinson's disease (PD). Several instruments have been used to assess this concept in PD; however, there is no consensus on which are the most appropriate.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to identify and critically appraise which measurement instruments have been used to assess FM.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PEDro from their inception to January 2019 to identify all observational and experimental studies conducted in PD or atypical parkinsonism that included an FM assessment. Two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and assessed clinimetric properties.

RESULTS

We included 95 studies that assessed FM in PD. Fifty-five (57.9%) studies mentioned FM in the article, and 39 (41.1%) specified the measurement tools used to evaluate FM. FM was the primary outcome in 12 (12.6%) studies. The Timed Up and Go test was the most frequently used measurement tool. Only one study presented a definition of FM. Several overlapping terms were used, the most common being mobility.

CONCLUSION

Several studies reported the use of FM measurement tools in PD, though with frequent misconceptions, an inadequate context of use, or suboptimal assessment. We propose the establishment of the concept of FM applied to PD, followed by the adequate clinimetric validation of existing measurement tools to provide a comprehensive and reliable evaluation of FM in PD.

Placebos and the Placebo Effect in Drug Trials

In this review, we explored different ways of controlling the placebo effects in clinical trials and described various factors that may increase/decrease the placebo effect in randomized placebo-controlled trials. These factors can be subdivided into four groups, and while not all factors are effective in every study and under all clinical conditions, they show on the whole that - even under the ideal condition of drug therapy, where blinded placebo provision is much easier and warranted than in, e.g., psychotherapy - many factors need to be controlled to ascertain that the goal of the clinical trials, fair assessment of superiority of the drug over placebo in placebo-controlled trials and fair assessment of non-inferiority of the drug compared to another drug in comparator trials, is reached. Ignorance towards the placebo effect, which was common in the past, is no longer acceptable; instead, it should be the goal of all therapeutic trials to minimize the placebo effect in clinical trials, while utilizing and maximizing it in clinical routine.