Meta-Analysis: Placebo Response and Its Determinants in Functional Dyspepsia

A scoping review of placebo and nocebo responses and effects: insights for clinical trials and practice

Placebo and nocebo responses and effects influence treatment outcomes across a variety of conditions. The current scoping review aims to synthesise evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses in both clinical and healthy populations, elucidating key determinants of placebo and nocebo responses and effects, including individual, clinical, psychological and contextual factors. Among the 306 publications identified, 83% were meta-analyses and 17% systematic reviews, with a predominance of research in medical specialties (81.7%) such as psychiatry and neurology. Placebo responses were significantly more studied than nocebo responses. Individual determinants (e.g., age), clinical determinants (e.g., baseline symptom severity) and psychological determinants (e.g., expectations) were found to influence placebo and nocebo outcomes. Contextual determinants, including trial design and the method of treatment administration, also played critical roles. Several key underinvestigated areas in the current body of systematic reviews and meta-analyses were also identified. This scoping review highlights valuable insights into the determinants of placebo and nocebo responses and effects on a group level, potentially offering practical implications for optimising clinical trial designs and enhancing patient care strategies in clinical practice. However, to fully leverage these benefits, it is crucial to address the underexplored topics through more rigorous investigations using a person-centred perspective.

Efficacy and safety of pinaverium bromide as an add-on therapy in refractory dyspepsia: A randomized controlled trial

Background and Aim

Functional dyspepsia (FD) remains a therapeutic challenge, and the efficacy of antispasmodic agents as adjunctive therapy is not well established. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pinaverium bromide added to omeprazole in treating refractory FD.

Methods

We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in patients with refractory dyspepsia. Participants were randomly assigned to receive pinaverium (50 mg, 3 times/day, n = 36) or placebo (n = 36) in addition to omeprazole for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the responder rate for adequate relief. Secondary outcomes included the Global Overall Symptom Scale (GOSS), quality of life, and safety profile.

Results

No statistically significant differences were observed in the adequate relief response rate between the pinaverium bromide and control group at week 2 (58.3% vs. 62.9%, P = 0.697), week 4 (62.9% vs. 78.1%, P = 0.173), week 6 (64.7% vs. 75.0%, P = 0.363), and week 8 (64.7% vs. 75.0%, P = 0.363). Additionally, there were no significant differences observed in the decline of symptom score between the two groups at week 4 (8.4 ± 7.6 vs. 7.7 ± 7.1, P = 0.702) and week 8 (10.9 ± 8.2 vs. 8.4 ± 7.2, P = 0.196). Similarly, there were no significant differences in terms of quality of life between the two groups. Adverse event rates were also comparable between the two groups.

Conclusion

Pinaverium bromide was found to be safe in the treatment of refractory dyspepsia, but it did not demonstrate a significant benefit in improving symptoms.

Functional Dyspepsia: Current Understanding and Future Perspective

BACKGROUND

Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a common disorder characterized by chronic or recurrent upper abdominal pain or discomfort without any structural abnormalities in the gastrointestinal tract. FD is categorized into two subgroups based on symptoms: postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) and epigastric pain syndrome.

SUMMARY

The pathophysiology of FD involves several mechanisms. Delayed gastric emptying is observed in approximately 30% of FD patients but does not correlate with symptom patterns or severity. Impaired gastric accommodation is important in the pathophysiology, particularly for PDS. Visceral hypersensitivity, characterized by heightened sensitivity to normal activities, contributes to the perception of discomfort or pain in FD. Alterations to the duodenal mucosa, including impaired mucosal barrier function and low-grade inflammation, are also implicated in the pathogenesis of FD. Microbial dysbiosis and psychological factors such as stress can further exacerbate symptoms. Treatment options include dietary modifications, establishing a physician-patient relationship, acid suppressants, prokinetics, neuromodulators, and behavioral therapies. Dietary recommendations include eating smaller, more frequent meals, and avoiding trigger foods. Acid suppressants are used as the first-line treatment. Prokinetics and neuromodulators aim to improve gastric motility and central pain processing, respectively. Behavioral therapies, including cognitive behavioral therapy and hypnotherapy, have shown benefits for refractory FD. Severe and refractory cases may require combination therapies or experimental treatments.

KEY MESSAGES

FD is a disorder of gut-brain interaction involving diverse pathophysiological mechanisms. Individualized treatment based on symptoms and responses to interventions is crucial. Further research is needed to improve the understanding of FD and advance the development of effective therapies.

Placebo effects in functional dyspepsia: Causes and implications for clinical trials

Placebo responses to an apparently inactive intervention are of interest from a scientific perspective as they suggest possible mechanism(s) at work beyond the intervention itself. They are also of interest from a clinical trials perspective since high rates of placebo response limit the potential to demonstrate worthwhile efficacy of a new intervention. This mini-review was motivated by the work of Bosman and colleagues(Neurogastroenterol Motil, 2022, and e14474) that is published in this issue of the journal in which they report on a systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo response in functional dyspepsia clinical trials. The review sets the scene for their work by putting it in the context of other disorders of brain-gut interaction and extra-gastrointestinal disorders. The review canvasses potential mechanisms of placebo response.

Placebo response in pharmacological trials in patients with functional dyspepsia-A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological trials in functional dyspepsia (FD) are associated with high placebo response rates. We aimed to identify the magnitude and contributing factors to the placebo response.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a dichotomous outcome in adult patients with FD that compared an active pharmacotherapeutic treatment with placebo. Our main outcome was identification of the magnitude of the pooled placebo response rate for the following endpoints: symptom responder, symptom-free responder, adequate relief responder, and combined endpoint responder (i.e., the primary endpoint of each specific trial regarding treatment response). Several putative moderators (i.e., patient, disease, and trial characteristics) were examined.

KEY RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs in our analysis. The pooled placebo response rate was 39.6% (95% CI 30.1-50.0) using the symptom responder definition, 20.5% (12.8-31.0) using the symptom-free responder definition, 38.5% (33.8-43.6) using the adequate relief responder definition, and 35.5% (31.6-39.7) using the combined endpoint responder definition. A lower overall baseline symptom score was significantly associated with a higher placebo response rate. No other moderators were found to significantly impact the placebo response rate. Due to the lack of data, no analyses could be performed according to individual FD subtypes or symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES

The pooled placebo response rate in pharmacological trials in FD is about 39%, depending on which responder definitions is used. Future trials should consider applying an entry criterion based on minimal level of symptom severity to decrease the placebo response. We also suggest separate reporting of core FD symptoms pending more concrete harmonization efforts in FD trials.

The treatment of functional dyspepsia: present and future

INTRODUCTION

Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a prevalent, but frequently overlooked and/or under diagnosed disorder of gut-brain interaction (DGBI). Functional dyspepsia frequently co-exists with other DGBIs, and persistent symptoms have a significant impact on patients' quality of life. A variety of therapies (e.g. diet, probiotics, antibiotics, acid suppressants, neuromodulators, prokinetics) are employed to treat the multiple symptoms of FD, although none are uniformly effective.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers currently available therapies for the treatment of FD in addition to novel and emerging therapies that may change the treatment paradigm in the near future. PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane data bank were searched from 1990 to October 2022 for relevant articles.

EXPERT OPINION

Dietary intervention, eradication of H. pylori, and/or a trial of acid suppression are reasonable initial treatment options for patients with FD. Neuromodulators and fundic accommodation agents are underemployed and should be used more routinely by healthcare providers, especially for patients with moderate-severe symptoms. Alternative therapies, such as cognitive behavioral therapy and hypnotherapy, are gaining recognition as safe and effective treatments for FD and can be used alone or in combination with medications. Virtual reality has the potential to significantly improve global FD symptoms.

Examining the Nocebo Effect in Trials of Neuromodulators for Use in Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Nocebo effects are thought to influence the rate of reported adverse events (AEs) and subject withdrawal in both the treatment and placebo groups of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Neuromodulators are commonly prescribed to treat disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs), but adherence to these medications is often limited by side effects such as headache, dry mouth, fatigue, and altered bowel habits. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the proportion and risk difference of patients who experienced side effects leading to withdrawal in the placebo arm versus the treatment arm of RCTs of neuromodulators for DGBIs. We also sought to estimate the risk of developing any AE in the placebo arm of these studies as well as the rate of specific individual adverse events.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Searches to identify RCTs that included terms for DGBIs and for commonly prescribed neuromodulators. We calculated pooled proportions of patients experiencing an AE leading to withdrawal in the active treatment group versus the placebo group with 95% confidence intervals (CI), the pooled proportions of patients experiencing any adverse event, the pooled proportions of patients experiencing specific adverse events such as dizziness and headache, the pooled proportions of patients experiencing severe adverse events and corresponding pooled risk differences with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

There were 30 RCTs included representing 2284 DGBI patients. 27 RCTs reported data on AEs leading to withdrawal. The pooled proportion of total patients with AEs leading to withdrawal in the placebo group was 4% (95% CI 0.02 - 0.04). The pooled proportion of patients with AEs leading to withdrawal who received neuromodulators was 9% (95% CI 0.06-0.13). In the 12 studies reporting data on patients experiencing at least one AE, the pooled proportion of patients experiencing any adverse event in the placebo group was 18% (95% CI 0.08 - 0.30), compared to 43% (95% CI 0.24 - 0.63) in the neuromodulator group. Thus, approximately 44% of the rate of withdrawal (0.04/0.09) and 42% of the rate reporting any side effects (0.18/0.43) in the neuromodulator group may be attributed to nocebo effects in the right context. Subgroup analysis by sex, medication class, risk of bias, and specific DGBIs revealed differing withdrawal rates. There was no statistically significant difference in patients experiencing individual AEs of dizziness, headache or diarrhea. Rates of dry mouth, fatigue and constipation were higher in treatment groups compared to placebo groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients with DGBIs in RCTs randomized to placebo groups frequently experience AEs and AEs that lead to withdrawal consistent with a strong nocebo effect. Non-specific AEs such as dizziness, headaches and diarrhea occurred similarly in patients receiving placebo compared to those receiving neuromodulators.

Factors Associated With Placebo Treatment Response in Functional Dyspepsia Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

Controlling for potential placebo effects is an important aspect of gaining an accurate estimate of how much the therapy alone changes patient symptoms or other end points. When the placebo effect is large, this can lead to only a small fraction of changes seen in the active therapy group being attributed to the therapy itself. This problem has been well studied in some disorders of brain-gut interaction but not in functional dyspepsia where placebo response rates of 40% and higher have been reported. Understanding risk factors for placebo response might lead to changes in trial design that could reduce the magnitude of the problem. This study sought to identify risk factors for the placebo effect in a functional dyspepsia clinical trial with a longer-term aim of suggesting trial design changes that might minimize the problem.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of the clinical trial data was undertaken using 2 arms deemed to involve placebo therapy. Potential predictors were drawn from a wide range of patient characteristics including psychological, clinical, and physiological features.

RESULTS

Predictors of a stronger placebo effect on the gastrointestinal symptom rating scale included higher functional dyspepsia symptom burden at baseline (b = -0.101), coexisting irritable bowel syndrome (b = -0.436), and higher scores on the Nepean Dyspepsia Index eat/drink domain (-0.005). Baseline symptom burden and coexisting irritable bowel syndrome were found to be independent placebo predictors, explaining 13% of the variance in change in gastrointestinal symptom rating scale. Anxiety, childhood sexual abuse, sleep amount, and frequent abdominal pain were also found to be predictors of change in individual symptom scores.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study yield actionable insights into trial methodology that may help to reduce the magnitude of the placebo effect in future functional dyspepsia treatment trials.

Response and Adverse Event Rates With Placebo in Gastroparesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Multiple drugs have been used to treat gastroparesis symptoms, yet their therapeutic benefits are poorly understood partly due to lack of insight into response and adverse event rates with placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We evaluated these issues systematically in drug trials for gastroparesis.

METHODS

We searched the medical literature through August 2, 2022 to identify RCTs comparing active drug with placebo in patients with gastroparesis. We assessed placebo response rates according to at least one of the following endpoints: improvement according to a composite outcome, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, or fullness, as well as total adverse events, and adverse events leading to withdrawal. We extracted data as intention-to-treat analyses with dropouts assumed to be treatment failures. We pooled placebo response and adverse event rates using a random effects model and expressed as proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies were eligible. Among 23 trials reporting a composite endpoint of improvement, the pooled placebo response rate was 29.3% (95% CI, 23.7%-35.2%). Pooled placebo response rates were higher in idiopathic compared with diabetic gastroparesis (34.2% vs 28.1%), among trials that did not use validated symptom questionnaires (31.2% vs 27.4%), and in RCTs of shorter duration (<4 weeks, 32.6% vs ≥9 weeks, 23.2%). Adverse events occurred in 33.8% (95% CI, 26.4%-41.8%) of patients with placebo, in 27 trials, and were less common in idiopathic compared with diabetic gastroparesis (17.9% vs 43.4%), trials of shorter duration (<4 weeks, 33.7% vs ≥9 weeks, 40.7%), and trials with lower randomization ratios of active drug to placebo (1:1, 26.7% vs 3:1, 50.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis assessed placebo response and adverse event rates in gastroparesis. To accurately assess therapeutic gain, future trials should be a minimum of 8 weeks duration, use validated questionnaires, and distinguish gastroparesis subtypes.

Positive Treatment Expectations Shape Perceived Medication Efficacy in a Translational Placebo Paradigm for the Gut-Brain Axis

Placebo research has established the pivotal role of treatment expectations in shaping symptom experience and patient-reported treatment outcomes. Perceived treatment efficacy constitutes a relevant yet understudied aspect, especially in the context of the gut-brain axis with visceral pain as key symptom. Using a clinically relevant experimental model of visceral pain, we elucidated effects of pre-treatment expectations on post-treatment perceived treatment efficacy as an indicator of treatment satisfaction in a translational placebo intervention. We implemented positive suggestions regarding intravenous treatment with a spasmolytic drug (in reality saline), herein applied in combination with two series of individually calibrated rectal distensions in healthy volunteers. The first series used distension pressures inducing pain (pain phase). In the second series, pressures were surreptitiously reduced, modeling pain relief (pain relief phase). Using visual analog scales (VAS), expected and perceived treatment efficacy were assessed, along with perceived pain intensity. Manipulation checks supported that the induction of positive pre-treatment expectations and the modeling of pain relief were successful. Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were implemented to assess the role of inter-individual variability in positive pre-treatment expectations in perceived treatment efficacy and pain perception. GLM indicated no association between pre-treatment expectations and perceived treatment efficacy or perceived pain for the pain phase. For the relief phase, pre-treatment expectations (p = 0.024) as well as efficacy ratings assessed after the preceding pain phase (p < 0.001) were significantly associated with treatment efficacy assessed after the relief phase, together explaining 54% of the variance in perceived treatment efficacy. The association between pre-treatment expectations and perceived pain approached significance (p = 0.057) in the relief phase. Our data from an experimental translational placebo intervention in visceral pain support that reported post-treatment medication efficacy is shaped by pre-treatment expectations. The observation that individuals with higher positive expectations reported less pain and higher treatment satisfaction after pain relief may provide first evidence that perceived symptom improvement may facilitate treatment satisfaction. The immediate experience of symptoms within a given psychosocial treatment context may dynamically change perceptions about treatment, with implications for treatment satisfaction, compliance and adherence of patients with conditions of the gut-brain axis.