Can placebo and nocebo effects generalize within pain modalities and across somatosensory sensations?

Experimentally induced pain and paresthesia respond differently to parameter changes of cuff-based compression in pain-free young individuals

Neuropathic pain is a significant therapeutic challenge due to the co-occurrence with other neurological symptoms such as paresthesia. Human-based models such as cuff algometry can enhance our understanding of pain-paresthesia relationships. This experiment aimed to characterize (psychophysically) pain and paresthesia evoked by stimuli of different temporal and intensity parameters and to demonstrate the reliability of experimental induction of these two symptoms using cuff algometry. Forty participants, aged 18-35, were exposed to mechanical pressure stimuli at three intensities (100, 150, 200 mmHg) and three durations (90, 120, 150 s). Skin Conductance (SC) was continuously monitored, and participants rated pain and paresthesia in real-time using a computerized visual analog scale. The General Linear Model analysis revealed significant differences in paresthesia across all durations (p<0.01), but not all intensities, as paresthesia did not increase from 150 to 200 mmHg (p>0.05). Conversely, pain responses showed significant differences across all pressure intensities (p<0.05) but not durations, as pain did not increase from 90 to 120 and from 120 to 150 s (p>0.05). No interaction effects were found for either symptom. SC analysis showed no significant main or interaction effects. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) indicated moderate to excellent reliability for pain and paresthesia induction across different durations and intensities (ICC: 0.51-0.91), while SC showed poor to good reliability (ICC: 0.17-0.79). In conclusion, computerized cuff algometry seems to be an effective and reliable method for simultaneously inducing and assessing pain and paresthesia, revealing that these symptoms follow different patterns based on pressure duration and intensity. PERSPECTIVE: This study demonstrates that pain and paresthesia respond differently to varying intensities and durations of mechanical pressure, revealing their distinct psychophysical characteristics. This model can advance the understanding of neuropathic conditions and aid the development of more targeted therapeutic approaches for both pain and paresthesia.

Studying the Effect of Expectations on High-Frequency Electrical Stimulation-Induced Pain and Pinprick Hypersensitivity

Negative expectations can increase pain, but can they promote the development of central sensitization? This study used an inert treatment and verbal suggestions to induce expectations of increased high-frequency electrical stimulation (HFS)-induced pain and assessed their effects on pain ratings during HFS and HFS-induced pinprick hypersensitivity. Fifty healthy volunteers were randomly allocated to either a control group (N = 25) or a nocebo group (N = 25). Participants in both groups received a patch containing water on the right forearm. The nocebo group was told that the patch contained capsaicin that sensitized their skin, while the control group was told that the patch contained water that had no effect on skin sensitivity. Before and after patch attachment, single electrical stimuli were delivered to the area of the patch to measure the perceived intensity to these stimuli. After patch removal and after the participant rated expected pain and fear for HFS, HFS was delivered to the same skin site, followed by the assessment of pinprick sensitivity. The nocebo group rated the perceived intensity for the single electrical stimulus after removal of the patch as more intense compared with the control group, indicating that our manipulation worked. Yet, this effect did not transfer to expected pain for HFS, nor did it affect pain intensity ratings during HFS. HFS increased pinprick sensitivity but no group differences were found. Because of the lack of differences in expected pain and pain intensity ratings for HFS between groups, no firm conclusions can be drawn regarding their effect on pinprick hypersensitivity. PERSPECTIVE: This study shows that sham treatment combined with verbal suggestions induces a nocebo effect but does not necessarily change expectations and experience of upcoming pain.

Conclusions Regarding the Role of Expectations in Placebo Analgesia Studies May Depend on How We Investigate It: A Meta-Analysis, Systematic Review, and Proposal for Methodological Discussions

OBJECTIVE

Expectations are highlighted as a key component in placebo effects. However, there are different approaches to whether and how placebo studies should account for expectations, and the direct contribution has yet to be estimated in meta-analyses. Using different methodological approaches, this meta-analysis and systematic review examines the extent to which expectations contribute to pain in placebo studies.

METHODS

The databases PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for placebo analgesia mechanism studies with numerical measures of both expectations and pain. Thirty-one studies, comprising 34 independent study populations (1566 subjects: patients and healthy participants) were included. Two meta-analyses were conducted: meta-analysis 1, using study-level data, estimated the effect of expectation interventions without taking measures of expectations into account (expectations assumed); and meta-analysis 2, using individual-level data, estimated the direct impact of participants' expectations on pain (expectations assessed). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis 1 showed a moderate effect of expectation interventions over no expectation intervention on pain intensity (Hedges g = 0.45, I2 = 54.19). Based on 10 studies providing individual-level data, meta-analysis 2 showed that expectations predicted pain intensity in placebo and control groups ( b = 0.36, SE = 0.05), although inconsistently across study methodologies.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants' expectations contributed moderately to pain in placebo analgesia studies. However, this may largely be influenced by how we measure expectations and how their contribution is conceptualized and analyzed-both within and across studies.

Placebo treatment affects brain systems related to affective and cognitive processes, but not nociceptive pain

Drug treatments for pain often do not outperform placebo, and a better understanding of placebo mechanisms is needed to improve treatment development and clinical practice. In a large-scale fMRI study (N = 392) with pre-registered analyses, we tested whether placebo analgesic treatment modulates nociceptive processes, and whether its effects generalize from conditioned to unconditioned pain modalities. Placebo treatment caused robust analgesia in conditioned thermal pain that generalized to unconditioned mechanical pain. However, placebo did not decrease pain-related fMRI activity in brain measures linked to nociceptive pain, including the Neurologic Pain Signature (NPS) and spinothalamic pathway regions, with strong support for null effects in Bayes Factor analyses. In addition, surprisingly, placebo increased activity in some spinothalamic regions for unconditioned mechanical pain. In contrast, placebo reduced activity in a neuromarker associated with higher-level contributions to pain, the Stimulus Intensity Independent Pain Signature (SIIPS), and affected activity in brain regions related to motivation and value, in both pain modalities. Individual differences in behavioral analgesia were correlated with neural changes in both modalities. Our results indicate that cognitive and affective processes primarily drive placebo analgesia, and show the potential of neuromarkers for separating treatment influences on nociception from influences on evaluative processes.

The Nocebo Effect

Adverse nocebo responses can cause harm to patients and interfere with treatment adherence and effects in both clinic practice and clinical trials. Nocebo responses refer to negative outcomes to active medical treatments in clinical trials or practice that cannot be explained by the treatment's pharmacologic effects. Negative expectancies and nocebo effects are less known than placebo responses. Nocebo effects can be triggered by verbal suggestions, prior negative experiences, observation of others experiencing negative outcomes, and other contextual and environmental factors. As research advances over the years, mechanistic knowledge is accumulating on the neurobiological mechanisms of nocebo effects. This review summarizes studies on different facets of nocebo effects and responses and discusses clinical implications, ethical considerations, and future directions.

The Optimal Learning Cocktail for Placebo Analgesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Individual and Combined Techniques

This study investigated for the first time the effects of individual and combined application of 3 learning techniques (verbal suggestions, classical conditioning, and observational learning) on placebo analgesia and extinction. Healthy participants (N = 206) were assigned to 8 different groups in which they were taught through either a verbal suggestion, a conditioning paradigm, a video observing someone, or any combination thereof that a placebo device (inactive transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation [TENS]) was capable of alleviating heat pain, whereas one group did not (control). Placebo analgesia was quantified as the within-group difference in experienced pain when the placebo device was (sham) 'activated' or 'inactivated' during equal pain stimuli, and compared between groups. Placebo analgesia was induced in groups with 2 or 3 learning techniques. Significantly stronger placebo analgesia was induced in the combination of all 3 learning techniques as compared to the individual learning techniques or control condition, underlining the additional contribution of 3 combined techniques. Extinction did not differ between groups. Furthermore, pain expectancies, but not state anxiety or trust, mediated placebo analgesia. Our findings emphasize the added value of combining 3 learning techniques to optimally shape expectancies that lead to placebo analgesia, which can be used in experimental and clinical settings. PERSPECTIVE: This unique experimental study compared the individual versus combined effects of 3 important ways of learning (verbal suggestions, classical conditioning, and observational learning) on expectation-based pain relief. The findings indicate that placebo effects occurring in clinical practice could be optimally strengthened if healthcare providers apply these techniques in combination.

Placebo treatment affects brain systems related to affective and cognitive processes, but not nociceptive pain

Placebo analgesia is a replicable and well-studied phenomenon, yet it remains unclear to what degree it includes modulation of nociceptive processes. Some studies find effects consistent with nociceptive effects, but meta-analyses show that these effects are often small. We analyzed placebo analgesia in a large fMRI study (N = 392), including placebo effects on brain responses to noxious stimuli. Placebo treatment caused robust analgesia in both conditioned thermal and unconditioned mechanical pain. Placebo did not decrease fMRI activity in nociceptive pain regions, including the Neurologic Pain Signature (NPS) and pre-registered spinothalamic pathway regions, with strong support from Bayes Factor analyses. However, placebo treatment affected activity in pre-registered analyses of a second neuromarker, the Stimulus Intensity Independent Pain Signature (SIIPS), and several associated a priori brain regions related to motivation and value, in both thermal and mechanical pain. Individual differences in behavioral analgesia were correlated with neural changes in both thermal and mechanical pain. Our results indicate that processes related to affective and cognitive aspects of pain primarily drive placebo analgesia.

Placebo effects on cutaneous pain and itch: a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental results and methodology

ABSTRACT

Placebo effects, positive treatment outcomes that go beyond treatment processes, can alter sensations through learning mechanisms. Understanding how methodological factors contribute to the magnitude of placebo effects will help define the mechanisms by which these effects occur. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental placebo studies in cutaneous pain and itch in healthy samples, focused on how differences in methodology contribute to the resulting placebo effect magnitude. We conducted meta-analyses by learning mechanism and sensation, namely, for classical conditioning with verbal suggestion, verbal suggestion alone, and observational learning, separately for pain and itch. We conducted subgroup analyses and meta-regression on the type of sensory stimuli, placebo treatment, number of acquisition and evocation trials, differences in calibrated intensities for placebo and control stimuli during acquisition, age, and sex. We replicated findings showing that a combination of classical conditioning with verbal suggestion induced larger placebo effects on pain ( k = 68, g = 0 . 59) than verbal suggestion alone ( k = 39, g = 0.38) and found a smaller effect for itch with verbal suggestion alone ( k = 7, g = 0.14). Using sham electrodes as placebo treatments corresponded with larger placebo effects on pain than when topical gels were used. Other methodological and demographic factors did not significantly affect placebo magnitudes. Placebo effects on pain and itch reliably occur in experimental settings with varied methods, and conditioning with verbal suggestion produced the strongest effects. Although methods may shape the placebo effect to some extent, these effects appear robust overall, and their underlying learning mechanisms may be harnessed for applications outside the laboratory.

Learned Nocebo Effects on Cutaneous Sensations of Pain and Itch: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Experimental Behavioral Studies on Healthy Humans

OBJECTIVE

In past decades, the field of nocebo research has focused on studying how sensory perception can be shaped by learning. Nocebo effects refer to aggravated sensory experiences or increased sensitivity to sensations such as pain and itch resulting from treatment-related negative experiences. Behavioral conditioning and verbal suggestions of a negative treatment outcome may aggravate pain and itch perception. Gaining a comprehensive view of the magnitude of nocebo effects and contributing factors will help steer nocebo research toward fruitful directions for understanding complex sensory phenomena.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of a total of 37 distinct experimental nocebo studies on healthy participants (all published in English between 2008 and 2021), with four separate meta-analyses for nocebo effects on pain or itch. We conducted subgroup analyses and meta-regression on factors such as type and intensity of sensory stimuli, and length of conditioning paradigms.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis showed that, on average, effect sizes of nocebo effects were moderate to large (Hedges g between 0.26 and 0.71 for the four primary outcomes). The combination of conditioning and verbal suggestions yielded stronger nocebo responses on pain in particular. Subgroup analyses, including factors such as the type of sensory stimulation, did not explain the moderate heterogeneity in nocebo magnitudes between different studies. Risk of bias was generally low and was not related to nocebo magnitudes either.

CONCLUSIONS

We discuss these results in relation to the role of conditioning and aversive learning, and we recommend more consistency in designing and reporting nocebo experiments.

Induction and generalization of nocebo effects on itch

Nocebo effects, that is, negative treatment outcomes due to negative expectancies, can increase itch. Moreover, indirect evidence has shown that nocebo hyperknesis can generalize to another itch modality. Knowledge on response generalization can help to prevent and decrease negative effects. The aims of this study were to investigate (1) the efficacy of inducing nocebo effects on cowhage‐evoked itch via verbal suggestions and (2) whether these effects can generalize to (2a) mechanically evoked touch and (2b) mechanically evoked itch. Forty‐four healthy participants watched a video suggesting that a nocebo solution increases cowhage‐evoked itch and that a control solution does not affect itch. Subsequently, cowhage, mechanical itch, and mechanical touch stimuli were applied. Nocebo effects were measured as the difference in both mean and peak of the outcomes itch and urge to scratch between nocebo and control trials. Main analyses revealed significant nocebo effects on mean and peak itch for all stimuli. For urge to scratch, a significant nocebo effect was only observed for mechanical touch (peak). As mechanical stimuli did not induce pure sensations as planned, posthoc sensitivity analyses were run for mechanical stimuli that individually induced either touch or itch at baseline. These analyses showed similar results for generalization to mechanical itch, but generalization to mechanical touch was non‐significant. This study showed that merely verbal suggestion can induce nocebo effects on cowhage‐evoked itch and that these effects can generalize to another itch modality. Future studies may examine how to prevent negative experiences from generalizing to subsequent encounters.

Do individual psychological characteristics predict induction and generalization of nocebo and placebo effects on pain and itch?

BACKGROUND

Nocebo and placebo effects, i.e., adverse or beneficial treatment effects, respectively, putatively due to expectancies can modulate pain and itch. These effects can generalize within the pain or itch modality. Predicting the induction and generalization of these effects can be helpful in clinical practice. This study aims to investigate whether psychological characteristics related to the fear-avoidance model predict the induction and generalization of nocebo and placebo effects on pain and itch in young healthy participants.

METHODS

Data from two previous experiments were analyzed. In Experiment 1, we induced nocebo and placebo effects on heat pain and tested generalization to pressure pain and to cowhage-evoked itch (n = 33 in a nocebo group, n = 32 in a placebo group). In Experiment 2, we induced nocebo effects on cowhage-evoked itch and tested generalization to mechanical itch and to mechanical touch (n = 44). Potential predictors were anxiety- and stress symptoms, attention to pain/itch, and pain/itch catastrophizing. Multiple regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

For nocebo effects, none of the individual psychological characteristics significantly predicted induction of nocebo effects nor their generalization. For placebo effects, only less stress symptoms, lower attention to pain, and higher pain catastrophizing weakly predicted a stronger generalization of placebo effects from heat pain to pressure pain.

CONCLUSION

The tested psychological characteristics may not play an important role in the induction and generalization of nocebo and placebo effects in healthy individuals. However, firm conclusions cannot be drawn with the current sample. Future studies should validate findings in larger and more diverse samples.

A social affective neuroscience lens on placebo analgesia

Pain is a fundamental experience that promotes survival. In humans, pain stands at the intersection of multiple health crises: chronic pain, the opioid epidemic, and health disparities. The study of placebo analgesia highlights how social, cognitive, and affective processes can directly shape pain, and identifies potential paths for mitigating these crises. This review examines recent progress in the study of placebo analgesia through affective science. It focuses on how placebo effects are shaped by expectations, affect, and the social context surrounding treatment, and discusses neurobiological mechanisms of placebo, highlighting unanswered questions and implications for health. Collaborations between clinicians and social and affective scientists can address outstanding questions and leverage placebo to reduce pain and improve human health.