Assessing clinical and psychological features: who are patients showing a nocebo re-action during the drug challenge test?

Drug provocation tests in children: All that glitters is not gold

A proper allergy work-up, based on the gold standard drug provocation test (DPT), usually rules out suspected drug hypersensitivity in children. These tests are generally open, given their high efficiency compared with double-blind placebo-controlled DPTs. Although their negative predictive value is excellent, no studies have calculated their positive predictive value, highly dependent on the prevalence of the disease. Most studies have found a rate of <5%-10% of true beta-lactam hypersensitivity in children. Given this low prevalence (pre-test probability), a few false-positive results can significantly reduce the estimated positive predictive value. False positives may arise from the nocebo effect during the test, including nocebo by proxy, or from observer bias, which depends on professional expertise and organizational circumstances. Some studies have found a high rate of tolerance on a second DPT in children who failed the first, but these results may be affected by the interval between the two tests, of a year or more in most cases, reflecting a loss of hypersensitivity over time. Taking into account the low rate of positive DPTs, with commonly mild reactions, we suggest confirming nonsevere positive DPTs with a second provocation performed soon after the first, especially in the case of beta-lactam antibiotics, in order to improve the diagnostic accuracy, de-label more patients, and achieve a better estimation of true drug hypersensitivity prevalence. In case of mild immediate reactions, the potential benefits of a second DPT should be carefully weighed against the risk of anaphylaxis.

The Perception of Lactose-Related Symptoms of Patients with Lactose Malabsorption

Background: Dairy products are frequently considered responsible for post-prandial symptoms and are withdrawn from the diet, even against medical advice. We analysed the symptoms patients consider as lactose related; we also evaluated if psychological profile may affect the interpretation of the relationship between lactose and symptoms. Methods: In 268 patients undergoing lactose breath test, symptoms considered evoked by lactose intake were recorded and their severity measured. In the second part, symptom onset of 40 randomly selected patients was detected after both lactose and glucose breath test were blindly performed. Questionnaires evaluating anxiety, suggestibility and personality trait were administered. Key Results: Symptoms depending on functional gastrointestinal disorders or reflux disease were frequent in self-reported lactose-intolerant patients. In comparison with lactose malabsorption, these symptoms proved to be more frequent in patients with negative lactose breath test. The blinded administration of lactose and glucose demonstrated that a correct link between lactose intake and symptom onset was possible, only in 47.5% of the subjects, making this test inaccurate. None of the investigated psychological characteristics were different between patients with a nocebo response and patients not experiencing nocebo. Conclusions: Patients with self-reported lactose intolerance are frequently unaware about clinical presentation of this condition, and correct information is needed. The detection of symptom onset after lactose is an inaccurate test for lactose intolerance. Furthermore, the analysis of psychological characteristics of patients undergoing hydrogen breath test is not useful to select the subgroup at risk for a nocebo response. New strategies to diagnose lactose intolerance are mandatory.

European Headache Federation recommendations for placebo and nocebo terminology

Background and aim

Despite recent publications, practitioners remain unfamiliar with the current terminology related to the placebo and nocebo phenomena observed in clinical trials and practice, nor with the factors that modulate them. To cover the gap, the European Headache Federation appointed a panel of experts to clarify the terms associated with the use of placebo in clinical trials.

Methods

The working group identified relevant questions and agreed upon recommendations. Because no data were required to answer the questions, the GRADE approach was not applicable, and thus only expert opinion was provided according to an amended Delphi method. The initial 12 topics for discussion were revised in the opinion of the majority of the panelists, and after a total of 6 rounds of negotiations, the final agreement is presented.

Results/recommendations

Two primary and mechanism-based recommendations are provided for the results of clinical trials: [1] to distinguish the placebo or nocebo response from the placebo or nocebo effect; and [2] for any favorable outcome observed after placebo administration, the term “placebo response” should be used, and for any unfavorable outcome recorded after placebo administration, the term “nocebo response” should be used (12 out of 17 panelists agreed, 70.6% agreement). The placebo or nocebo responses are attributed to a set of factors including those that are related to the medical condition (e.g. natural history, random comorbidities, etc.), along with idiosyncratic ones, in which the placebo or nocebo effects are attributed to idiosyncratic, or nonspecific mechanisms, exclusively (e.g. expectation, conditioning, observational learning etc.). To help investigators and practitioners, the panel summarized a list of environmental factors and idiosyncratic dynamics modulating placebo and nocebo effects. Some of them are modifiable, and investigators or physicians need to know about them in order to modify these factors appropriately to improve treatment. One secondary recommendation addresses the use of the terms “placebo” and “nocebo” (“placebos” and “nocebos” in plural), which refer to the triggers of the placebo/nocebo effects or responses, respectively, and which are inert agents or interventions that should not be confused with the placebo/nocebo responses or effects themselves (all panelists agreed, 100% agreement).

Conclusion

The working group recommends distinguishing the term response from effect to describe health changes from before to after placebo application and to distinguish the terms placebo(s) or nocebo(s) from the health consequences that they cause (placebo/nocebo responses or effects).

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.