Elsevier

Clinical Therapeutics

Volume 39, Issue 3, March 2017, Pages 477-486
Clinical Therapeutics

Review
The Placebo and Nocebo Phenomena: Their Clinical Management and Impact on Treatment Outcomes

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.01.031Get rights and content

Abstract

Purpose

This overview focuses on placebo and nocebo effects in clinical trials and routine care. Our goal was to propose strategies to improve outcomes in clinical practice, maximizing placebo effects and reducing nocebo effects, as well as managing these phenomena in clinical trials.

Methods

A narrative literature search of PubMed was conducted (January 1980–September 2016). Systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and case series that had an emphasis on placebo or nocebo effects in clinical practice were included in the qualitative synthesis. Search terms included: placebo, nocebo, clinical, clinical trial, clinical setting, placebo effect, nocebo effect, adverse effects, and treatment outcomes. This search was augmented by a manual search of the references of the key articles and the related literature.

Findings

Placebo and nocebo effects are psychobiological events imputable to the therapeutic context. Placebo is defined as an inert substance that provokes perceived benefits, whereas the term nocebo is used when an inert substance causes perceived harm. Their major mechanisms are expectancy and classical conditioning. Placebo is used in several fields of medicine, as a diagnostic tool or to reduce drug dosage. Placebo/nocebo effects are difficult to disentangle from the natural course of illness or the actual effects of a new drug in a clinical trial. There are known strategies to enhance clinical results by manipulating expectations and conditioning.

Implications

Placebo and nocebo effects occur frequently and are clinically significant but are underrecognized in clinical practice. Physicians should be able to recognize these phenomena and master tactics on how to manage these effects to enhance the quality of clinical practice.

Introduction

The placebo effect has been studied extensively throughout history.1, 2 The nocebo effect, also called “the evil brother of the placebo effect,” has been less studied, but in recent years has become a subject of growing interest.3, 4, 5 Both phenomena are composed of several intertwined biological and environmental mechanisms, displaying a complex interaction. Their operative mechanisms not only are affected by the characteristics of the individuals but also on the context in which they operate; thus, the search for a simple equation to predict the effect of placebo and nocebo has been met with limited success.

A precise definition of the placebo and nocebo phenomena is difficult to pinpoint, as different researchers have used different definitions, often depending on the context. A starting definition would be psychobiological events attributable to the overall therapeutic context6; herein, placebo effect would be the benefits provoked by an inert substance, and the nocebo effect is the induction of true or perceived harm after treatment with an inactive substance. Thus, a response to treatment, not attributable to the known mechanism of action of the treatment, is the core feature of both phenomena. This means that the definition can also be applied to an active substance treatment, then referring to the (extra) effects it elicits and that are not explained by its pharmacologic action. Many disorders have a natural course of illness in which symptoms fluctuate, making it difficult to differentiate between a placebo or nocebo response and the natural course of illness at an individual patient level. Similarly, many “side effects” occur commonly with or without pharmacotherapies (eg, headache), making it often difficult to disentangle, at an individual patient level, between a treatment-emergent adverse event that is a nocebo response or one that has occurred independently of treatment.

Paradigmatically, the placebo and nocebo phenomena have been most extensively studied in analgesia7, 8, 9, 10 and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).11 These phenomena have been studied more recently in the field of dermatology12, 13, 14 and in psychiatry, particularly in depression.15

The underpinnings of placebo and nocebo are psychological and neurobiological. Psychological mechanisms include expectancies, conditioning, learning, memory, motivation, somatic focus, reward, anxiety reduction and meaning, and “placebo-by-proxy” induced by clinicians and family members.16 Two principal mechanisms are well supported. The first aspect involves expectancy: the administration of placebo creates expectations in future responses by using simple verbal cues as modulators of expectations. Researchers can nudge a subject׳s expectations and boost the placebo effect. The second aspect involves classical conditioning: repeated associations between a neutral stimulus and an unconditioned stimulus (active drug) can result in the ability of the neutral stimulus by itself to provoke a response characteristic of the unconditioned stimulus.4, 17, 18 In a study of placebo/nocebo in thermal pain, neither conditioning nor expectation alone seemed to be able to elicit placebo or nocebo effects; however, the combination of experience (conditioning) and expectation resulted in significant placebo (analgesia) or nocebo (hyperalgesia) effects.19

Misattribution is the inappropriate attribution of improvement or worsening to a treatment when it was actually caused by the disorder’s natural fluctuation of symptoms or other causes.20 Misattribution may have a more significant role in nocebo effects than in placebo effects, although this theory remains a focus of active debate.21, 22

The neurobiology of the response to placebo and nocebo has been studied mostly in the paradigmatic field of analgesia and has been shown to be mainly related to the opioid and dopaminergic pathways.6, 23, 24 A companion paper published in this issue of Clinical Therapeutics reviews the theoretical and biological underpinnings of the nocebo and placebo phenomena.25

It is important to note that placebo and nocebo responses are highly variable across individuals. Some individual differences have been associated with genetic polymorphisms or underlying neurologic impairments. For example, patients with frontal lobe impairment, especially prefrontal lobe, have decreased expectancy and learning, and thus they partially or totally lose their placebo response. In a study of Alzheimer׳s disease and pain, patients with reduced Frontal Assessment Battery scores exhibited a reduced placebo component of the analgesic treatment.26 In intellectually disabled patients, a higher intelligence quotient was positively related with placebo response.27

Catechol-O-methyl transferase is involved in dopamine degradation, affecting the prefrontal lobe. The catechol-O-methyl transferase Val158Met polymorphism is a G to A mutation leading to amino acid substitution at codon 158 in the transmembrane form of the enzyme.28 It was suggested as a biomarker of placebo response in IBS and a potential biomarker of placebo response in other conditions.11 Thus, people who carry this polymorphism are more likely to experience the placebo effect.

The tryptophan hydroxylase-2 polymorphism (serotonin-related gene) seems a significant predictor of clinical placebo response in social anxiety disorder. Homozygosity for the G allele was associated with serotonergic modulation of amygdala activity and greater improvement in symptoms of anxiety.29 People who experience anxiety disorder and carry this polymorphism are more likely to experience the placebo effect. Thus, psychological and neurobiological factors can predict individual differences in placebo and nocebo response.

The present review first focuses on the impact of placebo and nocebo effects in routine clinical settings as well as in clinical trials, and then offers strategies on how to use that knowledge to improve the quality of care and results in research.

Section snippets

Materials and Methods

A literature search of PubMed was conducted for articles published between January 1980 and September 2016. Search terms included: placebo, nocebo, clinical, clinical trial, clinical setting, placebo effect, nocebo effect, adverse effects, and treatment outcomes. This search was augmented by a manual search of the references of the key articles and the related literature. Systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, and case series were identified. Articles

Clinical Application

The clinical understanding of the placebo effect is a relevant issue. Placebo responses may be a major driver of clinical change after diverse therapies. Placebos are used in several fields of medicine (eg, neurology, psychiatry, rheumatology, pain management, ophthalmology), although ethical considerations limit their use in some areas. When surveyed, 45% of American physicians admitted to having used a placebo.30 An English study found that only 12% of general practitioners use pure placebos

Challenges in Clinical Trials

The placebo or nocebo response is related to common biochemical pathways that are activated both by social stimuli and therapeutic rituals on one hand and by drugs on the other. It has been shown that when an opioid agent is administered, it binds to μ-opioid receptors, but the very same μ-opioid receptors are activated by the patient’s expectations about the drug.34 This outcome is concordant with the finding that drugs without therapeutic rituals are less effective.35 A suitable therapeutic

Placebo/Nocebo and Separation from the Natural Course of Illness

Understanding the natural course of illness is essential before commencing a clinical trial design or trying to separate drug from placebo effects. Given the fact that symptom severity does not stay frozen in time when no intervention is applied, the spontaneous progress or improvement of a pathological process can obviously confound or pose as a placebo or nocebo effect. These types of studies present numerous challenges, especially as modern medicine shifts its attention from infectious

Maximizing Placebo

Patient expectations contribute toward the outcome of several disorders. This has been demonstrated for analgesia, treatment of myocardial infarction and Parkinson’s disease, deep brain stimulation, orthopedic surgery, and antidepressant treatment.22 Positively influencing patients’ beliefs about therapeutic success is one way to maximize the placebo effect.50 However, being too optimistic is also ethically problematic and can be construed as disingenuous if one is not cautious. Manipulating a

Conclusions

Clinically, placebo and nocebo effects are of major importance, being present in daily medical practice. The overall effect of a drug stems from its pharmacodynamic actions plus the psychological effect derived from the act of its administration. Although both placebo and nocebo have been widely studied, the full complexity of their mechanisms needs further definition. Thus, when correctly applied, there are a number of strategies that can improve responses and patients’ quality of life,

Conflicts of Interest

The authors list no conflicts of interest in connection with this work. There was no funding support for this work.

Acknowledgments

Dr. Berk is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Senior Principal Research Fellowship (GNT1059660). All contributors to this manuscript are listed as co-authors. Michael Berk is supported by a NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellowship (1059660). All authors were involved in all aspects of preparing this review paper, including the literature search and writing.

References (73)

  • J.G. Rabkin et al.

    How blind is blind? Assessment of patient and doctor medication guesses in a placebo-controlled trial of imipramine and phenelzine

    Psychiatry Res

    (1986)
  • T.A. Furukawa et al.

    Placebo response rates in antidepressant trials: a systematic review of published and unpublished double-blind randomised controlled studies

    The Lancet Psychiatry

    (2016)
  • B.R. Rutherford et al.

    Does differential drop-out explain the influence of study design on antidepressant response? A meta-analysis

    J Affect Disord

    (2012)
  • M. Fässler et al.

    A systematic review found no consistent difference in effect between more and less intensive placebo interventions

    J Clin Epidemiol

    (2015)
  • K. Weimer et al.

    Placebo effects in psychiatry: mediators and moderators

    The Lancet Psychiatry

    (2015)
  • J.H. Newcorn et al.

    Characteristics of placebo responders in pediatric clinical trials of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

    J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry

    (2009)
  • G.I. Papakostas et al.

    Does the probability of receiving placebo influence clinical trial outcome? A meta-regression of double-blind, randomized clinical trials in MDD

    Eur Neuropsychopharmacol

    (2009)
  • W. Rief et al.

    Meta-analysis of the placebo response in antidepressant trials

    J Affect Disord

    (2009)
  • C.E. Kerr et al.

    William Cullen and a missing mind-body link in the early history of placebos

    J R Soc Med

    (2008)
  • R.K. Webster et al.

    A systematic review of factors that contribute to nocebo effects

    Heal Psychol

    (2016)
  • R. Szemerszky et al.

    Attribution-based nocebo effects. perceived effects of a placebo pill and a sham magnetic field on cognitive performance and somatic symptoms

    Int J Behav Med

    (2016)
  • F. Benedetti et al.

    New insights into placebo analgesia

    Curr Opin Anaesthesiol

    (2003)
  • J. Kong et al.

    Are all placebo effects equal? Placebo pills, sham acupuncture, cue conditioning and their association

    PLoS ONE

    (2013)
  • K.T. Hall et al.

    Catechol-O-methyltransferase val158met polymorphism predicts placebo effect in irritable bowel syndrome

    PLoS ONE

    (2012)
  • D.J. Bartels et al.

    Role of conditioning and verbal suggestion in placebo and nocebo effects on itch

    PLoS ONE

    (2014)
  • D.J. Bartels et al.

    Placebo and nocebo effects on itch: effects, mechanisms, and predictors

    Eur J Pain (United Kingdom)

    (2016)
  • V. Napadow et al.

    The imagined itch: brain circuitry supporting nocebo-induced itch in atopic dermatitis patients

    Allergy Eur J Allergy Clin Immunol

    (2015)
  • I. Kirsch

    Antidepressants and the placebo effect

    Zeitschrift fur Psychol/J Psychol

    (2014)
  • D.D. Price et al.

    A comprehensive review of the placebo effect: recent advances and current thought

    Annu Rev Psychol

    (2008)
  • M. Amanzio et al.

    Neuropharmacological dissection of placebo analgesia: expectation-activated opioid systems versus conditioning-activated specific subsystems

    J Neurosci

    (1999)
  • K.J. Petrie et al.

    Worries about modernity predict symptom complaints after environmental pesticide spraying

    Psychosom Med

    (2005)
  • L. Colloca et al.

    The nocebo effect and its relevance for clinical practice

    Psychosom Med

    (2011)
  • P. Enck et al.

    The placebo response in medicine: minimize, maximize or personalize?

    Nat Rev Drug Discov

    (2013)
  • L. Colloca et al.

    Placebos and painkillers: is mind as real as matter?

    Nat Rev Neurosci

    (2005)
  • S. Dodd et al.

    A review of the theoretical and biological understanding of nocebo and placebo phenomena

    Clin Ther

    (2017)
  • F. Benedetti et al.

    The biochemical and neuroendocrine bases of the hyperalgesic nocebo effect

    J Neurosci

    (2006)
  • Cited by (61)

    • Nocebo vs Placebo Effects: Their Clinical Relevance

      2022, American Journal of Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      Although this study disclosed no significant difference between sham injections and placebo pills, another study did find that injections possessed more potency than did pills, consistent with prior observations.12 Placebo effects are influenced by the interplay between recipient and caregiver, that is, the personality and mannerisms of the latter strongly influence the results.13 Physicians most likely to obtain optimum results are those emanating a positive attitude expecting a successful outcome.

    • Patients’ perceptions on non‐specific effects of acupuncture: Qualitative comparison between responders and non‐responders

      2022, Integrative Medicine Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      They actively communicated and interacted with acupuncturists during the treatment so as to reduce the pain associated with needle insertion. The perceived pain reduction may be achieved by (i) lowering negative expectation of the treatment, including anxiety and stress; (ii) gaining a sense of control and ownership in the process, and therefore increasing positive expectation on the treatment outcomes.64 The benefits of such active coping style maybe mediated via lowering of cortisol levels during treatment.65

    • Postoperative pain and edema control following different protocols of preemptive analgesia in the surgical removal of impacted third molars: A triple-blind parallel randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial

      2021, Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery
      Citation Excerpt :

      The use of placebo in clinical trials is still debated in a way that superiority to placebo is only clinically meaningful in patients who cannot benefit from other drugs (WHO, 2003). However, this strategy can “separate” the active drug effect from the placebo effect (Chavarria et al., 2017). It allowed the assessment of the additional effects of the test drug over the placebo and the comparison of this additional effects among test drugs.

    • States and Processes for Mental Health: Advancing Psychotherapy Effectiveness

      2021, States and Processes for Mental Health: Advancing Psychotherapy Effectiveness
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    *

    These authors contributed equally to this work.

    View full text