Can the Open Label Placebo Rationale Be Optimized?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Heiss U
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8915569 | biostudies-literature | 2021
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Can the Open Label Placebo Rationale Be Optimized?
Heiss Uwe U Rosenfield Maayan M Bernstein Michael H MH
Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) 20210930
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo analyse participants' concepts about the open-label placebo (OLP) effect; to explore their views about the discussion points that are applied in conventional OLP trials and to examine their experiences of taking part in an OLP trial.DesignA qualitative study using thematic analysis of semistructured interviews that were nested within a randomised controlled trial investigating experimental OLP analgesia (registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02578420).Participants30 healthy adults who took part in the randomised controlled trial.ResultsParticipants mostly conceptualised placebo as something that is inert and requires deception in order to be effective. Interviewees used a broad definition of placebos, going beyond a conventional notion of sugar pills. In contrast to the conventional OLP rationale, participants seldom emphasised classical conditioning as a mechanism of placebo effects, stressing a variety of other well-established components through which placebos might be therapeutic, whereas the conventional OLP disclosures state that 'a positive attitude helps but is not necessary', participants in our study applied other attitudes, such as 'it's worth a try'. When asked about their experiences during the trial, the majority emphasised that the concept of OLP was completely novel to them. Participants were rather sceptical about the efficacy of the intervention.ConclusionIntegrating lay perspectives into the scientific rationale of OLP treatments might enhance the plausibility and credibility of the rationale in ethical treatments.Trial registration numberNCT02578420.
| S-EPMC8375733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While placebo effects are well-known, research in the last decade revealed intriguing effects that placebos may have beneficial effects even when given without deception. At first glance, this seems paradoxical, but several studies have reported improvements in pain, depression, or anxiety. However, it still remains unclear whether these results represent objective biological effects or simply a bias in response and what neural underpinnings are associated with the open-label placebo effects. In two studies, we address this gap by demonstrating that open-label placebos reduce self-reported emotional distress when viewing highly arousing negative pictures. This reduced emotional distress was associated with an activation of brain areas known to modulate affective states such as the periaqueductal gray, the bilateral anterior hippocampi, and the anterior cingulate cortex. We did not find any prefrontal brain activation. Furthermore, brain activation was not associated with expectation of effects. In contrast, we found that brain responses were linked to general belief in placebos. The results demonstrate that the neural mechanisms of open-label placebo effects are partly identical to the neurobiological underpinnings of conventional placebos, but our study also highlights important differences with respect to a missing engagement of prefrontal brain regions, suggesting that expectation of effects may play a less prominent role in open-label placebos.
| S-EPMC9852452 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveRecent research on open-label placebos, or placebos administered without deception or concealment, suggests that they can be effective in a variety of conditions. The current research sought to unpack the mechanisms underlying the treatment efficacy of open-label placebos.MethodA health care provider induced an allergic reaction in 148 participants via a histamine skin prick test. Participants were then exposed to 1 of 4 conditions additively leveraging various mechanisms of open-label placebo treatments: a supportive patient-provider relationship, a medical ritual, positive expectations, and a rationale about the power of placebos.ResultsThere were no main effects of condition on allergic responses. However, participant beliefs about placebos moderated the effect of open-label placebo treatment condition on physiological allergic reactions: the condition including all 4 components of open-label placebos (a supportive patient-provider relationship, a medical ritual, positive expectations, and a rationale about the power of placebos) significantly reduced physiological allergic reaction among participants with a strong belief in placebos compared with participants in the control group.ConclusionParticipants' beliefs about placebos interact with information from the provider to reduce physiological allergic reactions in response to an open-label placebo treatment. This study underscores the importance of measuring and understanding how participants' beliefs influence outcomes of treatment, and furthers our understanding of when and how open-label placebo treatments work. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
| S-EPMC7640758 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AbstractIt is commonly believed that blinding to treatment assignment is necessary for placebos to have an effect. However, placebos administered without concealment (ie, open-label placebos [OLPs]) have recently been shown to be effective in some conditions. This study had 2 objectives: first, to determine whether OLP treatment is superior to no-pill control (NPC) in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and, second, to compare the efficacy of OLP against double-blind placebo (DBP). In a 6-week, 3-arm, randomized clinical trial, participants were randomized in equal proportions to 3 arms: OLP, DBP, or NPC. Two hundred sixty-two adults (72.9% women), with a mean age of 42.0 (SD = 18.1) years, participated in the primary study. The mean improvement on the IBS Severity Scoring System from baseline to the 6-week end point was significantly greater in OLP compared with that in NPC (90.6 vs 52.3, P = 0.038). Open-label placebo and DBP did not differ significantly on IBS Severity Scoring System improvement (100.3 vs 90.6, P = 0.485). Standardized effect sizes were moderate for OLP vs NPC (d = 0.43) and small for OLP vs DBP (d = 0.10). Participants treated with OLP reported clinically meaningful improvements in IBS symptoms that were significantly greater than those on NPC. Open-label placebo and DBP had similar effects that did not differ significantly, suggesting that blinding may not be necessary for placebos to be effective and that OLP could play a role in the management of patients with refractory IBS.
| S-EPMC8357842 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeveral studies demonstrated that placebo treatment may have a significant impact on many different symptoms. While in the traditional view concealment of the placebo is essential, recent studies report intriguing evidence that placebos may work even without deception. For example, it has been demonstrated that open-label placebos can improve symptoms in allergic rhinitis. However, the mechanisms of how placebos without concealment work remain unknown.Trial designIn order to examine expectancy effects we conducted a randomized controlled trial (N = 46), in which patients with allergic symptoms received either placebos without deception or no pills at all. In half of those patients we induced positive expectations about the placebo effect. After two weeks we tested whether symptoms and quality of life had changed.ResultsResults revealed that open-label placebos improved allergic symptoms more than the control group. Inducing positive expectations had no effects on the improvement of allergic symptoms (the primary and more objective outcome), but on mental sum scores of the quality of life questionnaire.ConclusionsPlacebos without deception can improve symptoms in allergic rhinitis. Positive expectations do not contribute to the efficacy of open-label placebos, but seem to have an effect on more global and subjective well-being (mental or emotional quality of life).Clinical trial registration numberGerman Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00012303.
| S-EPMC5841659 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is increasing evidence suggesting that open-label placebo (OLP) is an effective treatment for several medical conditions defined by self-report. However, little is known about patients' experiences with OLP, and no studies have directly compared patients' experiences in double-blind placebo (DBP) conditions.MethodsThis study was nested in a large randomized-controlled trial comparing the effects of OLP and DBP treatments in individuals with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We randomly selected 33 participants for interviews concerning their experiences in the parent trial. The data were qualitatively analyzed using an iterative immersion/crystallization approach. We then compared the qualitative interview data to the quantitative IBS severity data assessed during the parent trial, using a mixed methods approach.ResultsTwo prominent interview themes were identified: (1) the participants' feelings about their treatment allocation and (2) their reflections about the treatment. Both OLP and DBP participants mentioned hope and curiosity as major feelings driving them to engage with their treatment. However, while DBP participants tended to be more enthusiastic about their allocation, OLP participants were more ambivalent. Furthermore, OLP participants reflected more on their treatment, often involving noticeable cognitive and emotional processes of self-reflection. They offered a variety of explanations for their symptom improvement and were significantly less likely to attribute it to the treatment itself than DBP participants (Χ2 [3] = 8.28; p = .041). Similarly, the participants' retrospective narratives of symptom improvement were significantly correlated with their corresponding quantitative IBS severity scores only in DBP (p's ≤ .006) but not in OLP (p's ≥ .637).ConclusionOLP and DBP participants share feelings of hope, uncertainty and curiosity but differ in the extent of conscious reflection. The counter-intuitive OLP prompts more self-examination, ambivalent feelings and active engagement compared to DBP. At the same time, OLP participants are more reluctant to attribute symptom improvement to their treatment. Our findings substantially add to the emerging picture of factors that distinguish OLP and DBP and their potential mechanisms.
| S-EPMC8815135 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The use of so-called 'smart drugs' such as modafinil to improve cognitive performance has recently attracted considerable attention. However, their side effects have limited user enthusiasm. Open-label placebo (OLP) treatment, i.e., inert treatments that are openly disclosed to individuals as having no active pharmacological ingredient, has been shown to improve various medical symptoms and conditions, including those related to cognitive performance. OLP treatment could therefore be an exciting alternative to pharmacological cognitive enhancers. Here, we used a randomized-controlled design to investigate the effect of a 21-day OLP treatment on several sub-domains of cognitive performance in N = 78 healthy volunteers. Subjective and objective measures of cognitive performance as well as different measures of well-being were obtained before and after the treatment period. Using a combination of classic Frequentist and Bayesian analysis approaches showed no additional benefit from OLP treatment in any of the subjective or objective measures of cognitive performance. Our study thus highlights possible limitations of OLP treatment in boosting cognitive performance in healthy volunteers. These findings are discussed in the light of expectancy-value considerations that may determine OLP efficacy.
| S-EPMC10636058 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivePlacebo effects may occur when it is known that an inert substance is given (i.e., open-label placebo). It is not yet clear whether these effects are similar to concealed (i.e., closed-label) placebo effects for itch or whether nocebo effects can be induced under open-label conditions.MethodsHealthy volunteers (n = 112) were randomized to an open-label (I) or closed-label (II) positive suggestions group, or an open-label (III) or closed-label (IV) negative suggestions group. Participants were told, as cover story, that a transdermal caffeine patch would be applied that positively influences cognitive abilities and, as a side effect, positively or negatively (depending on group allocation) influences itch. Participants in the open-label groups were given a rationale explaining placebo and nocebo effect mechanisms. Itch (the primary outcome) was induced at baseline and postsuggestions by histamine iontophoresis.ResultsAnalyses of variance revealed significantly lower itch in the positive compared with the negative suggestions groups for both open- and closed-label contexts (all, p ≤ .008, Cohen d ≥ 0.47). Self-rated skin response was less severe after positive versus negative suggestions (all, p ≤ .017, Cohen d ≥ 0.33), but no effects on physical skin response were found (all, p ≥ .23, Cohen d ≤ 0.30).ConclusionsItch can be reduced by positive compared with negative suggestions under both open- and closed-label conditions. These findings indicate that open-label suggestions may potentially be a tool to use placebo effects for self-reported outcomes in clinical practice, for example, by explaining the role of expectancy in treatment. It needs to be investigated further under which circumstances an open-label rationale may impact placebo and nocebo effects.Trial Registration:www.trialregister.nl; NTR7174.
| S-EPMC7748039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMost physicians sometimes apply therapies without specific active ingredients. Although patients seem to judge such placebo treatments as acceptable under certain circumstances, deception is still an ethical problem. Open-label placebos (OLPs) might be a promising approach to solve this dilemma. This study compared general acceptance and outcome expectations of OLPs and deceptive placebos (DPs).MethodsIn an experimental online study, 814 participants read a case vignette of a person with insomnia receiving a pill. The participants were then randomly allocated into two groups, where the second part of the vignette described the pill as either a deceptive placebo (DP group) or as an open-label placebo (OLP group). The Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ) assessed outcome expectations after the first (pre-assessment) and the second (post-assessment) parts of the vignette. Treatment acceptance was measured at post-assessment. Data from 798 participants were analyzed by a mixed multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), t-tests, and post-hoc mediation analyses.ResultsThe MANOVA revealed a significant group main effect and a significant time × group interaction effect. At post-assessment, outcome expectations were higher in the DP group than in the OLP group. Acceptance of the placebo treatment was also higher in the DP group than in the OLP group. Mediation analyses confirmed that higher acceptance in the DP group was mediated by higher expectations.ConclusionsWhen laypersons read about placebo treatment, their outcome expectations toward DPs were higher than toward OLPs. Surprisingly, the application of DPs was rated as more acceptable than OLPs. This result might be explained by indirect effects of treatment expectations.
| S-EPMC8263407 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this 21-day assessor blinded, randomized-controlled trial was to compare an open-label placebo (OLP) to treatment as usual (TAU) for cancer survivors with fatigue. This was followed by an exploratory 21-day study in which TAU participants received OLPs while OLP participants in the main study were followed after discontinuing placebos. Cancer survivors (N = 74) who completed cancer treatment 6 months to 10 years prior to enrollment reporting at least moderate fatigue (i.e., ≥4 on a 0-10 scale) were randomized to OLP or TAU. Those randomized to OLP took 2 placebo pills twice a day for 21 days. Compared to those randomized to TAU, OLP participants reported a 29% improvement in fatigue severity (average difference in the mean change scores (MD) 12.47, 95% CI 3.32, 21.61; P = 0.008), medium effect (d = 0.63), and a 39% improvement in fatigue-disrupted quality of life (MD = 11.76, 95% CI 4.65, 18.86; P = 0.002), a large effect (d = 0.76). TAU participants who elected to try OLP for 21-days after the main study reported reductions in fatigue of a similar magnitude for fatigue severity and fatigue-disrupted quality of life (23% and 35%, respectively). OLP may reduce fatigue symptom severity and fatigue-related quality of life disruption in cancer survivors.
| S-EPMC5807541 | biostudies-literature