Certainty of genuine treatment increases drug responses among intellectually disabled patients

A Prospective Open-Label Trial of Buspirone for the Treatment of Anxiety in Williams Syndrome

Study Design: Prospective open-label trial. Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine whether buspirone showed preliminary evidence of effectiveness, safety, and tolerability in individuals with Williams syndrome (WS). Methods: This is a 16-week, prospective, flexibly dosed, open-label trial of buspirone in 20 individuals with WS aged 5-65 years. The primary outcome measure was the Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale (PARS). Results: Buspirone use (mean dose, 22.6 mg per day) was associated with a reduction in anxiety severity, with Cohen's d estimate of -4.02 for the PARS. All 18 participants who completed the study received the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement subscale score for anxiety of "much improved" or "very much improved." No serious or severe adverse events occurred during the trial, and no participants discontinued the study due to adverse events. Conclusion: Buspirone was safe and well tolerated. It was also associated with a reduction in anxiety severity. Given these findings, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of buspirone in WS is warranted.

Placebo and nocebo effects and mechanisms associated with pharmacological interventions: an umbrella review

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to summarise the existing knowledge about placebo and nocebo effects associated with pharmacological interventions and their mechanisms.

DESIGN

Umbrella review, adopting the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 tool for critical appraisal.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial were searched in September 2022, without any time restriction, for systematic reviews, narrative reviews, original articles. Results were summarised through narrative synthesis, tables, 95% CI.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Mechanisms underlying placebo/nocebo effects and/or their effect sizes.

RESULTS

The databases search identified 372 studies, for a total of 158 312 participants, comprising 41 systematic reviews, 312 narrative reviews and 19 original articles. Seventy-three per cent of the examined systematic reviews were of high quality.Our findings revealed that mechanisms underlying placebo and/or nocebo effects have been characterised, at least in part, for: pain, non-noxious somatic sensation, Parkinson's disease, migraine, sleep disorders, intellectual disability, depression, anxiety, dementia, addiction, gynaecological disorders, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, immune and endocrine systems, cardiovascular and respiratory systems, gastrointestinal disorders, skin diseases, influenza and related vaccines, oncology, obesity, physical and cognitive performance. Their magnitude ranged from 0.08 to 2.01 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.89) for placebo effects and from 0.32 to 0.90 (95% CI 0.24 to 1.00) for nocebo effects.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a valuable tool for clinicians and researchers, identifying both results ready for clinical practice and gaps to address in the near future.

FUNDING

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy with the 'Finanziamento Ponte 2022' grant.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023392281.

Placebo effects in children with autism spectrum disorder

Placebo responses are frequently observed in research studies and clinical contexts, yet there is limited knowledge about the placebo effect among children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Here, we review the placebo effect in autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Placebo responses are widely evident in ASD clinical trials and could partly operate via so-called placebo-by-proxy, whereby caregivers or clinicians indirectly shape patient outcomes. Understanding the role of placebo effects in ASD may help discern genuine treatment effects from contextual factors in clinical trials. The much less studied nocebo effect, or negative placebo, might contribute to the experience of side effects in ASD treatments but empirical data is missing. Better knowledge about placebo and nocebo mechanisms may contribute to the development of more effective research designs, such as three-armed designs that account for natural history, and improved treatments for ASD symptoms. At a clinical level, deeper knowledge about placebo and nocebo effects may optimize the delivery of care for individuals with ASD in the future. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Placebo responses are evident in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) clinical trials. Placebo responses in ASD are likely dependent on a placebo-by-proxy mechanism.

Mouse models of fragile X-related disorders

The fragile X-related disorders are an important group of hereditary disorders that are caused by expanded CGG repeats in the 5' untranslated region of the FMR1 gene or by mutations in the coding sequence of this gene. Two categories of pathological CGG repeats are associated with these disorders, full mutation alleles and shorter premutation alleles. Individuals with full mutation alleles develop fragile X syndrome, which causes autism and intellectual disability, whereas those with premutation alleles, which have shorter CGG expansions, can develop fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome, a progressive neurodegenerative disease. Thus, fragile X-related disorders can manifest as neurodegenerative or neurodevelopmental disorders, depending on the size of the repeat expansion. Here, we review mouse models of fragile X-related disorders and discuss how they have informed our understanding of neurodegenerative and neurodevelopmental disorders. We also assess the translational value of these models for developing rational targeted therapies for intellectual disability and autism disorders.

Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders

BACKGROUND

Control interventions in randomised trials provide a frame of reference for the experimental interventions and enable estimations of causality. In the case of randomised trials assessing patients with mental health disorders, many different control interventions are used, and the choice of control intervention may have considerable impact on the estimated effects of the treatments being evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of typical control interventions in randomised trials with patients with mental health disorders. The difference in effects between control interventions translates directly to the impact a control group has on the estimated effect of an experimental intervention. We aimed primarily to assess the difference in effects between (i) wait-list versus no-treatment, (ii) usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment, and (iii) placebo interventions (all placebo interventions combined or psychological, pharmacological, and physical placebos individually) versus wait-list or no-treatment. Wait-list patients are offered the experimental intervention by the researchers after the trial has been finalised if it offers more benefits than harms, while no-treatment participants are not offered the experimental intervention by the researchers.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2018, we searched MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, CENTRAL, and seven other databases and six trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials assessing patients with a mental health disorder that compared wait-list, usual care, or placebo interventions with wait-list or no-treatment .

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed for eligibility. Review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for data from additional published and unpublished trials. A pre-planned decision hierarchy was used to select one benefit and one harm outcome from each trial. For the assessment of benefits, we summarised continuous data as standardised mean differences (SMDs) and dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs). We used risk differences (RDs) for the assessment of adverse events. We used random-effects models for all statistical analyses. We used subgroup analysis to explore potential causes for heterogeneity (e.g. type of placebo) and sensitivity analyses to explore the robustness of the primary analyses (e.g. fixed-effect model).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 96 randomised trials (4200 participants), ranging from 8 to 393 participants in each trial. 83 trials (3614 participants) provided usable data. The trials included 15 different mental health disorders, the most common being anxiety (25 trials), depression (16 trials), and sleep-wake disorders (11 trials). All 96 trials were assessed as high risk of bias partly because of the inability to blind participants and personnel in trials with two control interventions. The quality of evidence was rated low to very low, mostly due to risk of bias, imprecision in estimates, and heterogeneity. Only one trial compared wait-list versus no-treatment directly but the authors were not able to provide us with any usable data on the comparison. Five trials compared usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment and found a SMD -0.33 (95% CI -0.83 to 0.16, I² = 86%, 523 participants) on benefits. The difference between all placebo interventions combined versus wait-list or no-treatment was SMD -0.37 (95% CI -0.49 to -0.25, I² = 41%, 65 trials, 2446 participants) on benefits. There was evidence of some asymmetry in the funnel plot (Egger's test P value of 0.087). Almost all the trials were small. Subgroup analysis found a moderate effect in favour of psychological placebos SMD -0.49 (95% CI -0.64 to -0.30; I² = 53%, 39 trials, 1656 participants). The effect of pharmacological placebos versus wait-list or no-treatment on benefits was SMD -0.14 (95% CI -0.39 to 0.11, 9 trials, 279 participants) and the effect of physical placebos was SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.35 to -0.08, I² = 0%, 17 trials, 896 participants). We found large variations in effect sizes in the psychological and pharmacological placebo comparisons. For specific mental health disorders, we found significant differences in favour of all placebos for sleep-wake disorders, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorders, but the analyses were imprecise due to sparse data. We found no significant differences in harms for any of the comparisons but the analyses suffered from sparse data. When using a fixed-effect model in a sensitivity analysis on the comparison for usual care versus wait-list and no-treatment, the results were significant with an SMD of -0.46 (95 % CI -0.64 to -0.28). We reported an alternative risk of bias model where we excluded the blinding domains seeing how issues with blinding may be seen as part of the review investigation itself. However, this did not markedly change the overall risk of bias profile as most of the trials still included one or more unclear bias domains.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found marked variations in effects between placebo versus no-treatment and wait-list and between subtypes of placebo with the same comparisons. Almost all the trials were small with considerable methodological and clinical variability in factors such as mental health population, contents of the included control interventions, and outcome domains. All trials were assessed as high risk of bias and the evidence quality was low to very low. When researchers decide to use placebos or usual care control interventions in trials with people with mental health disorders it will often lead to lower estimated effects of the experimental intervention than when using wait-list or no-treatment controls. The choice of a control intervention therefore has considerable impact on how effective a mental health treatment appears to be. Methodological guideline development is needed to reach a consensus on future standards for the design and reporting of control interventions in mental health intervention research.

Does Certainty of Genuine Treatment Increase the Drug Response in Alzheimer's Disease Patients: A Meta-Analysis and Critical Discussion

BACKGROUND

Non-specific treatment effects, such as expectations, contribute to the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments across diseases. However, the contribution of expectancy, i.e., certainty of receiving treatment, in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim is to investigate whether certainty of receiving a genuine treatment influences the response to active treatment in AD patients.

METHODS

The efficacy of active treatments in open-label trials, where patients are certain of receiving treatment (100%certainty), was compared to the same active treatments in randomized controlled trials (RCT), where patients are uncertain of receiving treatment or placebo (50%certainty).

RESULTS

In the seven open-label trials, there was no significant difference between post- and pre-treatment scores (difference in means = 0.14, 95%CI [-0.51; 0.81], p = 0.66). In the eight RCT trials, there was a significant difference between post- and pre-treatment (difference in means = -0.91, 95%CI [-1.43; -0.41], p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference between open-label and RCT trials (difference = 1.06, 95%CI [0.23; 1.90], p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients with AD did not benefit from certainty of receiving genuine treatment. This could be due to the nature/progression of the disease, but it could also be related to an order effect in the practice of running AD trials, where RCTs are conducted prior to open label. These findings have implications for the understanding of non-specific treatment effects in AD patients as well as for the design of clinical trials that test pharmacological treatments in AD.

Different routes of administration in chronic migraine prevention lead to different placebo responses: a meta-analysis

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.

Why we need more research into the placebo response in psychiatry

Placebos are not inert, but exert measurable biological effects. The placebo response in psychiatric illness is important and clinically relevant, but remains poorly understood. In this paper, we review current knowledge about the placebo response in psychiatric medicine and identify research directions for the future. We argue that more research is needed into the placebo response in psychiatric medicine for three broad reasons. First, awareness of factors that cause placebo response, for whom, and when, within clinical trials will allow us to better evidence efficacy of new treatments. Second, by understanding how placebo mechanisms operate in the clinic, we can take advantage of these to optimise the effects of current treatments. Finally, exploring the biological mechanisms of placebo effects might reveal tractable targets for novel treatment development.

Putting the 'Art' Into the 'Art of Medicine': The Under-Explored Role of Artifacts in Placebo Studies

Research in social psychology demonstrates that physical environmental factors – or “artifacts” such as provider clothing and office décor – can influence health outcomes. However, the role of artifacts in augmenting or diminishing health outcomes is under-explored in the burgeoning discipline of placebo studies. In this paper, we argue that a careful consideration of artifacts may carry significant potential in informing how placebo effects can be maximized, and nocebo effects minimized in clinical settings. We discuss the potential mechanisms, including classical conditioning, response expectancy, and mindsets, by which artifacts might enhance or diminish these effects. Next, we propose testable hypotheses to investigate how placebo and nocebo effects might be elicited by artifacts in care settings, and conclude by providing innovative research designs to advance this novel research agendum.

"Placebo by Proxy" and "Nocebo by Proxy" in Children: A Review of Parents' Role in Treatment Outcomes

The "placebo (effect) by proxy" (PbP) concept, introduced by Grelotti and Kaptchuk (1), describes a positive effect of a patient's treatment on persons in their surrounding such as family members or healthcare providers, who feel better because the patient is being treated. The PbP effect is a complex dynamic phenomenon which attempts to explain a change in treatment outcome arising from an interaction between a patient and an effect from proxies such as parents, caregivers, physicians or even the media. By extension the effect of the proxy can also have a negative or adverse effect whereby a proxy feels worse when a patient is treated, giving rise to the possibility of a "nocebo (effect) by proxy" (NbP), and by extension can influence a patient's treatment response. While this has yet to be systematically investigated, such an effect could occur when a proxy observes that a treatment is ineffective or is perceived as causing adverse effects leading the patient to experience side effects. In this narrative review, we take these definitions one step further to include the impact of PbP/NbP as they transform to affect the treatment outcome for the patient or child being treated, not just the people surrounding the individual being treated. Following a systematic search of literature on the subject using the Journal of Interdisciplinary Placebo Studies (JIPS) database (https://jips.online) and PubMed (NCBI) resulted in very few relevant studies, especially in children. The effect of PbP per se has been studied in parents and their children for temper tantrums, acupuncture for postoperative symptoms, as well as for neuroprotection in very preterm-born infants. This paper will review the PbP/NbP concepts, show evidence for its presence in children's treatment outcome and introduce clinical implications. We will also offer suggestions for future research to further our understanding of the role of the proxy in promoting or distracting from treatment benefit in children. Increasing an appreciation of the PbP and NbP phenomena and the role of the proxy in children's treatment should improve research study design and ultimately harness them to improve clinical child healthcare.

Placebo Effects in Traumatic Brain Injury

In recent years, several randomized controlled trials evaluating pharmaceutical treatments for traumatic brain injury (TBI) have failed to demonstrate efficacy over placebo, with both active and placebo arms improving at comparable rates. These findings could be viewed in opposing ways, suggesting on the one hand failure of the tested outcome, but on the other, representing evidence of robust placebo effects in TBI. In this article, we examine several of the primary psychological processes driving placebo effects (verbal suggestion, cognitive re-framing, interpersonal interactions, conditioning, therapeutic alliance, anxiety reduction) as well as placebo neurobiology (top-down cortical regulation, reward system activation, dopaminergic and serotonergic neurotransmission). We then extrapolate from the literature to explore whether something inherent in TBI makes it particularly responsive to placebos. Viewed as such here, placebos may indeed represent a powerful and effective treatment for a variety of post-TBI complaints.

What Is Minimally Required to Elicit Placebo Effects?

Placebo effects have often been attributed to cognitive processes described as "learning" and/or "expectancy," yet the role of conscious awareness is unclear. Furthermore, little is known about the placebo effects in patients with limited cognitive abilities, such as intellectual disability. Here, recent data on placebo mechanisms in patients with impaired cognitive function will be discussed, as well as experimental studies investigating how implicit cognitive processes may shape placebo effects. Together these studies comment on the minimum requirements in order to elicit placebo effects, both from the view of conscious awareness and from the perspective of Intelligence Quotient and basic brain function. Together with recent conceptualizations of placebo effects in terms of predictive coding, there is evidence to suggest that placebo effects are fundamental responses of the brain that have developed to promote survival.

Drug development for neurodevelopmental disorders: lessons learned from fragile X syndrome

Neurodevelopmental disorders such as fragile X syndrome (FXS) result in lifelong cognitive and behavioural deficits and represent a major public health burden. FXS is the most frequent monogenic form of intellectual disability and autism, and the underlying pathophysiology linked to its causal gene, FMR1, has been the focus of intense research. Key alterations in synaptic function thought to underlie this neurodevelopmental disorder have been characterized and rescued in animal models of FXS using genetic and pharmacological approaches. These robust preclinical findings have led to the implementation of the most comprehensive drug development programme undertaken thus far for a genetically defined neurodevelopmental disorder, including phase IIb trials of metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 (mGluR5) antagonists and a phase III trial of a GABA_B receptor agonist. However, none of the trials has been able to unambiguously demonstrate efficacy, and they have also highlighted the extent of the knowledge gaps in drug development for FXS and other neurodevelopmental disorders. In this Review, we examine potential issues in the previous studies and future directions for preclinical and clinical trials. FXS is at the forefront of efforts to develop drugs for neurodevelopmental disorders, and lessons learned in the process will also be important for such disorders.