Person:

Kelley, John

Identifying patients who are potential placebo responders has major implications for clinical practice and trial design. Catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT), an important enzyme in dopamine catabolism plays a key role in processes associated with the placebo effect such as reward, pain, memory and learning. We hypothesized that the COMT functional val158met polymorphism, was a predictor of placebo effects and tested our hypothesis in a subset of 104 patients from a previously reported randomized controlled trial in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The three treatment arms from this study were: no-treatment (“waitlist”), placebo treatment alone (“limited”) and, placebo treatment “augmented” with a supportive patient-health care provider interaction. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline in IBS-Symptom Severity Scale (IBS-SSS) after three weeks of treatment. In a regression model, the number of methionine alleles in COMT val158met was linearly related to placebo response as measured by changes in IBS-SSS (p = .035). The strongest placebo response occurred in met/met homozygotes treated in the augmented placebo arm. A smaller met/met associated effect was observed with limited placebo treatment and there was no effect in the waitlist control. These data support our hypothesis that the COMT val158met polymorphism is a potential biomarker of placebo response.

Background: Placebo treatment can significantly influence subjective symptoms. However, it is widely believed that response to placebo requires concealment or deception. We tested whether open-label placebo (non-deceptive and non-concealed administration) is superior to a no-treatment control with matched patient-provider interactions in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Methods: Two-group, randomized, controlled three week trial (August 2009-April 2010) conducted at a single academic center, involving 80 primarily female (70%) patients, mean age 47±18 with IBS diagnosed by Rome III criteria and with a score ≥150 on the IBS Symptom Severity Scale (IBS-SSS). Patients were randomized to either open-label placebo pills presented as “placebo pills made of an inert substance, like sugar pills, that have been shown in clinical studies to produce significant improvement in IBS symptoms through mind-body self-healing processes” or no-treatment controls with the same quality of interaction with providers. The primary outcome was IBS Global Improvement Scale (IBS-GIS). Secondary measures were IBS Symptom Severity Scale (IBS-SSS), IBS Adequate Relief (IBS-AR) and IBS Quality of Life (IBS-QoL). Findings: Open-label placebo produced significantly higher mean (±SD) global improvement scores (IBS-GIS) at both 11-day midpoint (5.2±1.0 vs. 4.0±1.1, p<.001) and at 21-day endpoint (5.0±1.5 vs. 3.9±1.3, p = .002). Significant results were also observed at both time points for reduced symptom severity (IBS-SSS, p = .008 and p = .03) and adequate relief (IBS-AR, p = .02 and p = .03); and a trend favoring open-label placebo was observed for quality of life (IBS-QoL) at the 21-day endpoint (p = .08). Conclusion: Placebos administered without deception may be an effective treatment for IBS. Further research is warranted in IBS, and perhaps other conditions, to elucidate whether physicians can benefit patients using placebos consistent with informed consent. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01010191

Objective: To determine whether the patient-clinician relationship has a beneficial effect on either objective or validated subjective healthcare outcomes. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data Sources Electronic databases EMBASE and MEDLINE and the reference sections of previous reviews. Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients in which the patient-clinician relationship was systematically manipulated and healthcare outcomes were either objective (e.g., blood pressure) or validated subjective measures (e.g., pain scores). Studies were excluded if the encounter was a routine physical, or a mental health or substance abuse visit; if the outcome was an intermediate outcome such as patient satisfaction or adherence to treatment; if the patient-clinician relationship was manipulated solely by intervening with patients; or if the duration of the clinical encounter was unequal across conditions. Results: Thirteen RCTs met eligibility criteria. Observed effect sizes for the individual studies ranged from d = −.23 to .66. Using a random-effects model, the estimate of the overall effect size was small (d = .11), but statistically significant (p = .02). Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs suggests that the patient-clinician relationship has a small, but statistically significant effect on healthcare outcomes. Given that relatively few RCTs met our eligibility criteria, and that the majority of these trials were not specifically designed to test the effect of the patient-clinician relationship on healthcare outcomes, we conclude with a call for more research on this important topic.

Objective: To determine whether placebo responses can be explained by characteristics of the patient, the practitioner, or their interpersonal interaction. Methods: We performed an analysis of videotape and psychometric data from a clinical trial of IBS patients treated with placebo acupuncture in either a warm empathic interaction (Augmented, n=96), a neutral interaction (Limited, n=97), or a waitlist control (Waitlist, n=96). We examined the relations between placebo response and: (1) patient personality and demographics; (2) treating practitioner; and (3) the patient-practitioner interaction as captured on videotape and rated by the Psychotherapy Process Q-Set (PQS). Results: Patient extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, and female gender were associated with placebo response, but these effects held only in the augmented group. Regression analyses controlling for all other independent variables suggest that only extraversion is an independent predictor of placebo response. There were significant differences between practitioners in outcomes, and this effect was twice as large as the effect attributable to treatment group assignment. Videotape analysis indicated that the augmented group fostered a treatment relationship similar to a prototype of an ideal healthcare interaction. Conclusions: Gender and personality influenced placebo response, but only in the warm, empathic, augmented group. This suggests that to the degree a placebo effect is evoked by the patient-practitioner relationship, personality characteristics of the patient will be associated with placebo response. This finding may explain why consistent predictors of the placebo response have been difficult to detect. In addition, practitioners differed markedly in effectiveness, despite standardized interactions. We propose that the quality of the patient-practitioner interaction accounts for the significant difference between the groups in placebo response.

Evidence that placebo acupuncture is an effective treatment for chronic pain presents a puzzle: how do placebo needles appearing to patients to penetrate the body, but instead sitting on the skin’s surface in the manner of a tactile stimulus, evoke a healing response? Previous accounts of ritual touch healing in which patients often described enhanced touch sensations (including warmth, tingling or flowing sensations) suggest an embodied healing mechanism. In this qualitative study, we asked a subset of patients in a randomized trial in irritable bowel syndrome to describe treatment experiences. Analysis focused on patients’ unprompted descriptions of any enhanced touch sensations (e.g., warmth, tingling) and any significance patients assigned to the sensations. We found in 5/6 cases, patients associated sensations including “warmth” and “tingling” with treatment efficacy. The conclusion offers a “neurophenomenological” account of the placebo effect by considering dynamic effects of attentional filtering on early sensory cortices, possibly underlying the phenomenology of placebo acupuncture.

Patients in the placebo arms of randomized controlled trials (RCT) often experience positive changes from baseline. While multiple theories concerning such “placebo effects” exist, peculiarly, none has been informed by actual interviews of patients undergoing placebo treatment. Here, we report on a qualitative study (n = 27) embedded within a RCT (n = 262) in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Besides identical placebo acupuncture treatment in the RCT, the qualitative study patients also received an additional set of interviews at the beginning, midpoint, and end of the trial. Interviews of the 12 qualitative subjects who underwent and completed placebo treatment were transcribed. We found that patients (1) were persistently concerned with whether they were receiving placebo or genuine treatment; (2) almost never endorsed “expectation” of improvement but spoke of “hope” instead and frequently reported despair; (3) almost all reported improvement ranging from dramatic psychosocial changes to unambiguous, progressive symptom improvement to tentative impressions of benefit; and (4) often worried whether their improvement was due to normal fluctuations or placebo effects. The placebo treatment was a problematic perturbation that provided an opportunity to reconstruct the experiences of the fluctuations of their illness and how it disrupted their everyday life. Immersion in this RCT was a co-mingling of enactment, embodiment and interpretation involving ritual performance and evocative symbols, shifts in bodily sensations, symptoms, mood, daily life behaviors, and social interactions, all accompanied by self-scrutiny and re-appraisal. The placebo effect involved a spectrum of factors and any single theory of placebo—e.g. expectancy, hope, conditioning, anxiety reduction, report bias, symbolic work, narrative and embodiment—provides an inadequate model to explain its salubrious benefits.

Background: Placebo medications, by definition, are composed of inactive ingredients that have no physiological effect on symptoms. Nonetheless, administration of placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and in clinical settings has been demonstrated to have significant impact on many physical and psychological complaints. Until recently, conventional wisdom has suggested that patients must believe that placebo pills actually contain (or, at least, might possibly contain) active medication in order to elicit a response to placebo. However, several recent RCTs, including patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), chronic low back pain, and episodic migraine, have demonstrated that individuals receiving open-label placebo (OLP) can still experience symptomatic improvement and benefit from honestly described placebo treatment. Methods and design This paper describes an innovative multidisciplinary trial design (n = 280) that attempts to replicate and expand upon an earlier IBS OLP study. The current study will compare OLP to double-blind placebo (DBP) administration which is made possible by including a nested, double-blind RCT comparing DBP and peppermint oil. The study also examines possible genetic and psychological predictors of OLP and seeks to better understand participants’ experiences with OLP and DBP through a series of extensive interviews with a randomly selected subgroup. Discussion OLP treatment is a novel strategy for ethically harnessing placebo effects. It has potential to re-frame theories of placebo and to influence how physicians can optimize watch-and-wait strategies for common, subjective symptoms. The current study aims to dramatically expand what we know about OLP by comparing, for the first time, OLP and DBP administration. Adopting a unique, multidisciplinary approach, the study also explores genetic, psychological and experiential dimensions of OLP. The paper ends with an extensive discussion of the “culture” of the trial as well as potential mechanisms of OLP and ethical implications. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02802241. Registered on 14 June 2016. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1964-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective: To compare the effects of true and sham acupuncture in relieving symptoms of IBS. Methods: A total of 230 adult IBS patients (75% females, average age 38.4 yrs) were randomly assigned to 3 weeks of true or sham acupuncture (6 treatments) following a 3 week ‘run-in’ with sham acupuncture in an ‘augmented’ or ‘limited’ patient-practitioner interaction. A third arm of the study included a waitlist control group. The primary outcome was the IBS Global Improvement Scale (IBS-GIS) (range 1–7); secondary outcomes included IBS Symptom Severity Scale (IBS-SSS), Adequate Relief (IBS-AR) and IBS-Quality of life (IBS-QOL). Results: Though there was no statistically significant difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture on the IBS-GIS (41% vs. 32%, p=0.25), both groups improved significantly compared to the wait list control group (37% vs. 4%, p=0.001). Similarly, small differences that were not statistically significant favored acupuncture on the other three outcomes: IBS-AR (59% vs 57%, p=0.83), IBS-SSS (31% vs 21%, p=0.18) and IBS-QOL (17% vs 13%, p=0.56). Eliminating responders during the run-in period did not substantively change the results. Side effects were generally mild and only slightly greater in the acupuncture group. Conclusion: This study did not find evidence to support the superiority of acupuncture compared to sham acupuncture in the treatment of IBS.

Introduction: Placebos have long provided a robust control for evaluating active pharmacological preparations, but frequently demonstrate a variable therapeutic effect when delivered in double-blinded placebo-controlled trials. Delivery of placebos as treatment alone has been considered unethical, as it has been thought that deception is essential for their effect. However, recent evidence suggests that clinical benefit can be derived from placebos delivered without deception (unblinded/open-label) manner. Here, we present a protocol for the first systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of the effects of non-deceptive placebos compared with no treatment. Methods and analysis This protocol will compare the effect of placebos delivered non-deceptively to no treatment. It will also assess the methods of delivery used for non-deceptive placebos. Studies will be sought through relevant database searches and will include those within disease settings and those among healthy controls. To be included, trials must include both non-deceptive (open-label) placebo and no treatment groups. All data extraction and analysis will be conducted by two independent reviewers. The analysis will evaluate any differences in outcome measures between the non-deceptive placebo and no treatment groups. Outcome measures will be the clinically-relevant outcomes detailed in the primary papers. The delivery methods, such as verbal instructions, which may provide positive expectations and outcomes, of non-deceptive placebos will also be assessed. Each study will be comprehensively assessed for bias. Subgroup analyses will identify any discrepancies among heterogeneous data. Ethics and dissemination This review does not require ethical approval. The completed review will be widely disseminated by publication and social media where appropriate. This protocol has been registered on PROSPERO (2015:CRD42015023347).