Durable multimodal and holistic response for physiologic closed-loop spinal cord stimulation supported by objective evidence from the EVOKE double-blind randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain patients may experience impairments in multiple health-related domains. The design and interpretation of clinical trials of chronic pain interventions, however, remains primarily focused on treatment effects on pain intensity. This study investigates a novel, multidimensional holistic treatment response to evoked compound action potential-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop spinal cord stimulation as well as the degree of neural activation that produced that treatment response. METHODS: Outcome data for pain intensity, physical function, health-related quality of life, sleep quality and emotional function were derived from individual patient level data from the EVOKE multicenter, participant, investigator, and outcome assessor-blinded, parallel-arm randomized controlled trial with 24 month follow-up. Evaluation of holistic treatment response considered whether the baseline score was worse than normative values and whether minimal clinical important differences were reached in each of the domains that were impaired at baseline. A cumulative responder score was calculated to reflect the total minimal clinical important differences accumulated across all domains. Objective neurophysiological data, including spinal cord activation were measured. RESULTS: Patients were randomized to closed-loop (n=67) or open-loop (n=67). A greater proportion of patients with closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (49.3% vs 26.9%) were holistic responders at 24-month follow-up, with at least one minimal clinical important difference in all impaired domains (absolute risk difference: 22.4%, 95% CI 6.4% to 38.4%, p=0.012). The cumulative responder score was significantly greater for closed-loop patients at all time points and resulted in the achievement of more than three additional minimal clinical important differences at 24-month follow-up (mean difference 3.4, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.5, p=0.002). Neural activation was three times more accurate in closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (p<0.001 at all time points). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that closed-loop spinal cord stimulation can provide sustained clinically meaningful improvements in multiple domains and provide holistic improvement in the long-term for patients with chronic refractory pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02924129.

ECAP-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop SCS for the treatment of chronic pain: 36-month results of the EVOKE blinded randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The evidence for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been criticized for the absence of blinded, parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and limited evaluations of the long-term effects of SCS in RCTs. The aim of this study was to determine whether evoked compound action potential (ECAP)-controlled, closed-loop SCS (CL-SCS) is associated with better outcomes when compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS (OL-SCS) 36 months following implant. METHODS: The EVOKE study was a multicenter, participant-blinded, investigator-blinded, and outcome assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled, parallel-arm clinical trial that compared ECAP-controlled CL-SCS with fixed-output OL-SCS. Participants with chronic, intractable back and leg pain refractory to conservative therapy were enrolled between January 2017 and February 2018, with follow-up through 36 months. The primary outcome was a reduction of at least 50% in overall back and leg pain. Holistic treatment response, a composite outcome including pain intensity, physical and emotional functioning, sleep, and health-related quality of life, and objective neural activation was also assessed. RESULTS: At 36 months, more CL-SCS than OL-SCS participants reported ≥50% reduction (CL-SCS=77.6%, OL-SCS=49.3%; difference: 28.4%, 95% CI 12.8% to 43.9%, p<0.001) and ≥80% reduction (CL-SCS=49.3%, OL-SCS=31.3%; difference: 17.9, 95% CI 1.6% to 34.2%, p=0.032) in overall back and leg pain intensity. Clinically meaningful improvements from baseline were observed at 36 months in both CL-SCS and OL-SCS groups in all other patient-reported outcomes with greater levels of improvement with CL-SCS. A greater proportion of patients with CL-SCS were holistic treatment responders at 36-month follow-up (44.8% vs 28.4%), with a greater cumulative responder score for CL-SCS patients. Greater neural activation and accuracy were observed with CL-SCS. There were no differences between CL-SCS and OL-SCS groups in adverse events. No explants due to loss of efficacy were observed in the CL-SCS group. CONCLUSION: This long-term evaluation with objective measurement of SCS therapy demonstrated that ECAP-controlled CL-SCS resulted in sustained, durable pain relief and superior holistic treatment response through 36 months. Greater neural activation and increased accuracy of therapy delivery were observed with ECAP-controlled CL-SCS than OL-SCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02924129.

Holistic Treatment Response: An International Expert Panel Definition and Criteria for a New Paradigm in the Assessment of Clinical Outcomes of Spinal Cord Stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Treatment response to spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is focused on the magnitude of effects on pain intensity. However, chronic pain is a multidimensional condition that may affect individuals in different ways and as such it seems reductionist to evaluate treatment response based solely on a unidimensional measure such as pain intensity. AIM: The aim of this article is to add to a framework started by IMMPACT for assessing the wider health impact of treatment with SCS for people with chronic pain, a "holistic treatment response". DISCUSSION: Several aspects need consideration in the assessment of a holistic treatment response. SCS device data and how it relates to patient outcomes, is essential to improve the understanding of the different types of SCS, improve patient selection, long-term clinical outcomes, and reproducibility of findings. The outcomes to include in the evaluation of a holistic treatment response need to consider clinical relevance for patients and clinicians. Assessment of the holistic response combines two key concepts of patient assessment: (1) patients level of baseline (pre-treatment) unmet need across a range of health domains; (2) demonstration of patient-relevant improvements in these health domains with treatment. The minimal clinical important difference (MCID) is an established approach to reflect changes after a clinical intervention that are meaningful for the patient and can be used to identify treatment response to each individual domain. A holistic treatment response needs to account for MCIDs in all domains of importance for which the patient presents dysfunctional scores pre-treatment. The number of domains included in a holistic treatment response may vary and should be considered on an individual basis. Physiologic confirmation of therapy delivery and utilisation should be included as part of the evaluation of a holistic treatment response and is essential to advance the field of SCS and increase transparency and reproducibility of the findings.

Understanding the role of patient preference in the treatment algorithm for chronic low back pain: results from a survey-based study.

Aims: Interventional pain treatments range from injections to established radiofrequency ablation techniques and finally neuromodulation. In addition to safety, efficacy and cost dominance, patient preference for type of treatment is important. Methods: Chronic pain patients (n = 129) completed a preference scale to determine which interventional pain management procedures they would prefer from among radiofrequency ablation, temporary (60-day) peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), conventional PNS and spinal cord stimulation/dorsal root ganglion stimulation. A second survey (n = 347) specific to assessing the preference for radiofrequency ablation or temporary PNS treatment was completed by patients with low back pain. Results: On the basis of mean rank, temporary PNS percutaneously implanted for up to 60 days was the most preferred treatment compared with the other options presented (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Patient preference should be unbiased and considered as an independent variable for physician discussion in treatment options and future research.

Patient preference is an important variable for physicians to consider when discussing treatment options for low back pain. A consumer survey study was completed discussing patient preference among various invasive treatments for low back pain. When given scenarios discussing risks and benefits of each procedure (temporary peripheral nerve stimulation for 60 days, heat ablation of small back nerves and permanently implanted back pain devices) temporary peripheral nerve stimulation was considered the preferred option.

Healthcare Utilization and Costs Associated with New-Onset Pain in a Medicare Population.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a common and growing problem in the United States with variable strategies for its treatment. Surgical interventions are necessary in some cases but not required for all patients with new-onset pain. For some patients, interventional pain management (IPM) techniques can treat chronic pain without the cost or risk associated with surgical intervention. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare healthcare utilization and costs for new-onset chronic pain treated by IPM specialists to those treated by providers with surgical specialties (i.e., orthopedists and neurosurgeons). STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective observational study of qualifying patients over 36-months (2016-2019). SETTING: This study was conducted using 100% Medicare FFS Parts A, B, and Prescription Drug Event (PDE) Part D data, including enrollment and claims. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of pain were identified in the claims data. Twelve months of pre-period claims were examined to ensure the incident diagnosis of pain, and 2 additional pain diagnoses were required after initial diagnosis. Patients were assigned either to the IPM cohort or a Surgical cohort based on the specialty of the provider involved in their first pain-related visit after initial diagnosis. Key outcomes, such as the utilization of healthcare services and cost of care, were evaluated for both cohorts over the 24-months following the index diagnosis of pain. RESULTS: 106,658 beneficiaries were included in the study with roughly 36% in the IPM cohort. Patients in the IPM cohort were less healthy and had lower incomes in the baseline period compared to the Surgical cohort. Fewer members of the IPM cohort had an inpatient stay in the 24-months post index pain diagnosis (40% compared to 43% in the surgery cohort) and the IPM cohort had fewer patients with a post-acute care stay (29% compared to 31% in the inpatient stay cohort). The IPM cohort had lower risk-adjusted total costs of care than the Surgical cohort, driven by lower inpatient, outpatient, and post-acute care costs. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective claims data may not include some factors important to patients with a pain diagnosis (such as over-the-counter medications, holistic treatments, or pain scores). CONCLUSION(S): By shifting patients from higher-cost and more invasive surgical procedures, IPM's multidisciplinary approach to pain treatment can reduce surgical utilization and costs for certain chronic pain patients. This shift away from more expensive surgical treatments fits well with Medicare's move toward value-based care, driven by a focus on patient outcomes including health care utilization and costs.

Therapy Habituation at 12 Months: Spinal Cord Stimulation Versus Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I and II.

The ACCURATE randomized, controlled trial compared outcomes of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation versus tonic spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in 152 subjects with chronic lower extremity pain due to complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I or II. This ACCURATE substudy was designed to evaluate whether therapy habituation occurs with DRG stimulation as compared to SCS through 12-months. A modified intention-to-treat analysis was performed to assess percentage pain relief (PPR) and responder rates at follow-up visits (end-of-trial, 1, 3, 6, 9, 12-months postpermanent implant) for all subjects that completed trial stimulation (DRG:N = 73, SCS:N = 72). For both groups, mean PPR was significantly greater at end-of-trial (DRG = 82.2%, SCS =0 77.0%) than all other follow-ups. Following permanent DRG system implantation, none of the time points were significantly different from one another in PPR (range = 69.3-73.9%). For the SCS group, PPR at 9-months (58.3%) and 12-months (57.9%) was significantly less than at 1-month (66.9%). The responder rate also decreased for the SCS group from 1-month (68.1%) to 12-months (61.1%). After stratifying by diagnosis, it was found that only the CRPS-I population had diminishing pain relief with SCS. DRG stimulation resulted in more stable pain relief through 12-months, while tonic SCS demonstrated therapy habituation at 9- and 12-months. Trial Registration: The ACCURATE study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with Identifier NCT01923285. PERSPECTIVE: This article reports on an ACCURATE substudy, which found that long-term therapy habituation occurred at 12-months with SCS, but not DRG stimulation, in patients with CRPS. The underlying mechanisms of action for these results remain unclear, although several lines of inquiry are proposed.

Trial Design and Endpoint Evaluation in Clinical Studies Addressing Chronic Back Pain.

STUDY DESIGN: A review of the literature evaluating clinical trials of chronic back pain. OBJECTIVE: To assist physicians in assessing the quality of clinical trial data to make the most informed treatment decisions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Chronic pain is a tremendous public health issue, affecting close to 100 million adults in the United States, and costs the American people billions of dollars. One traditional treatment approach, the long-term use of opiate medications, has recently come under intense scrutiny for problems with complications, diversion, abuse, addiction, and lack of efficacy. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recognized that overprescribing opiates has enabled an overdose crisis, and written guidelines that are intended to limit their use. It is for this reason that physicians must have a comprehensive understanding of the range of drug-free alternative therapies available and have the tools needed to rigorously evaluate the chronic pain literature so they can make appropriate treatment decisions. METHODS: An evaluation of how clinical trials are designed and ranked, outcome measures, and costs for a variety of therapies is necessary to determine which treatment option is the most efficacious for an individual patient. RESULTS: Clinical trial data demonstrate that spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a safe and effective treatment option for many types of chronic pain, including back pain. The last 10 years has brought tremendous advances in the field of neuromodulation. Today, several treatment modalities exist for SCS requiring the physician to be able to critically evaluate and interpret the literature and determine which modality has the strongest evidence. When evaluating clinical trial data of patients with chronic back pain, emphasis must be placed on well designed, randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up producing level I evidence. These data are obtained in a rigorous manner and are likely to have less bias when compared with lower level studies. CONCLUSION: The level I studies performed to date have provided evidence that treatment with SCS results in sustainable pain reduction and improvements in scores measuring quality of life and patient functioning in those patients with chronic intractable back pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.

Dorsal root ganglion stimulation yielded higher treatment success rate for complex regional pain syndrome and causalgia at 3 and 12 months: a randomized comparative trial.

Animal and human studies indicate that electrical stimulation of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons may modulate neuropathic pain signals. ACCURATE, a pivotal, prospective, multicenter, randomized comparative effectiveness trial, was conducted in 152 subjects diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome or causalgia in the lower extremities. Subjects received neurostimulation of the DRG or dorsal column (spinal cord stimulation, SCS). The primary end point was a composite of safety and efficacy at 3 months, and subjects were assessed through 12 months for long-term outcomes and adverse events. The predefined primary composite end point of treatment success was met for subjects with a permanent implant who reported 50% or greater decrease in visual analog scale score from preimplant baseline and who did not report any stimulation-related neurological deficits. No subjects reported stimulation-related neurological deficits. The percentage of subjects receiving ≥50% pain relief and treatment success was greater in the DRG arm (81.2%) than in the SCS arm (55.7%, P < 0.001) at 3 months. Device-related and serious adverse events were not different between the 2 groups. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation also demonstrated greater improvements in quality of life and psychological disposition. Finally, subjects using DRG stimulation reported less postural variation in paresthesia (P < 0.001) and reduced extraneous stimulation in nonpainful areas (P = 0.014), indicating DRG stimulation provided more targeted therapy to painful parts of the lower extremities. As the largest prospective, randomized comparative effectiveness trial to date, the results show that DRG stimulation provided a higher rate of treatment success with less postural variation in paresthesia intensity compared to SCS.

The Dorsal Root Ganglion as a Therapeutic Target for Chronic Pain.

Chronic neuropathic pain is a widespread problem with negative personal and societal consequences. Despite considerable clinical neuroscience research, the goal of developing effective, reliable, and durable treatments has remained elusive. The critical role played by the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) in the induction and maintenance of chronic pain has been largely overlooked in these efforts, however. It may be that, by targeting this site, robust new options for pain management will be revealed. This review summarizes recent advances in the knowledge base for DRG-targeted treatments for neuropathic pain:• Pharmacological options including the chemical targeting of voltage-dependent calcium channels, transient receptor potential channels, neurotrophin production, potentiation of opioid transduction pathways, and excitatory glutamate receptors.• Ablation or modulation of the DRG via continuous thermal radiofrequency and pulsed radiofrequency treatments.• Implanted electrical neurostimulator technologies.• Interventions involving the modification of DRG cellular function at the genetic level by using viral vectors and gene silencing methods.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation of the spinal cord and peripheral nervous system for the treatment of chronic pain and ischemic diseases: the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee.

INTRODUCTION: The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) of the International Neuromodulation Society (INS) evaluated evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of neurostimulation to treat chronic pain, chronic critical limb ischemia, and refractory angina and recommended appropriate clinical applications. METHODS: The NACC used literature reviews, expert opinion, clinical experience, and individual research. Authors consulted the Practice Parameters for the Use of Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain (2006), systematic reviews (1984 to 2013), and prospective and randomized controlled trials (2005 to 2013) identified through PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. RESULTS: Neurostimulation is relatively safe because of its minimally invasive and reversible characteristics. Comparison with medical management is difficult, as patients considered for neurostimulation have failed conservative management. Unlike alternative therapies, neurostimulation is not associated with medication-related side effects and has enduring effect. Device-related complications are not uncommon; however, the incidence is becoming less frequent as technology progresses and surgical skills improve. Randomized controlled studies support the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in treating failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome. Similar studies of neurostimulation for peripheral neuropathic pain, postamputation pain, postherpetic neuralgia, and other causes of nerve injury are needed. International guidelines recommend spinal cord stimulation to treat refractory angina; other indications, such as congestive heart failure, are being investigated. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate neurostimulation is safe and effective in some chronic pain conditions. Technological refinements and clinical evidence will continue to expand its use. The NACC seeks to facilitate the efficacy and safety of neurostimulation.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation: stimulation of the intracranial and extracranial space and head for chronic pain. Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee.

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has identified a need for evaluation and analysis of the practice of neurostimulation of the brain and extracranial nerves of the head to treat chronic pain. METHODS: The INS board of directors chose an expert panel, the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC), to evaluate the peer-reviewed literature, current research, and clinical experience and to give guidance for the appropriate use of these methods. The literature searches involved key word searches in PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar dated 1970-2013, which were graded and evaluated by the authors. RESULTS: The NACC found that evidence supports extracranial stimulation for facial pain, migraine, and scalp pain but is limited for intracranial neuromodulation. High cervical spinal cord stimulation is an evolving option for facial pain. Intracranial neurostimulation may be an excellent option to treat diseases of the nervous system, such as tremor and Parkinson's disease, and in the future, potentially Alzheimer's disease and traumatic brain injury, but current use of intracranial stimulation for pain should be seen as investigational. CONCLUSIONS: The NACC concludes that extracranial nerve stimulation should be considered in the algorithmic treatment of migraine and other disorders of the head. We should strive to perfect targets outside the cranium when treating pain, if at all possible.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation: new and evolving neurostimulation therapies and applicable treatment for chronic pain and selected disease states. Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee.

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has determined that there is a need to provide an expert consensus that defines the appropriate use of neuromodulation technologies for appropriate patients. The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) was formed to give guidance to current practice and insight into future developments. METHODS: The INS executive board selected members of the international scientific community to analyze scientific evidence for current and future innovations and to use clinical experience to fill in any gaps in information. The NACC used PubMed and Google Scholar to obtain current evidence in the field and used clinical and research experience to give a more complete picture of the innovations in the field. RESULTS: The NACC has determined that currently approved neurostimulation techniques and technologies have expanded our ability to treat patients in a more effective and specific fashion. Despite these advances, the NACC has identified several additional promising technologies and potential applications for neurostimulation that could move this field forward and expand the applicability of neuromodulation. CONCLUSIONS: The NACC concludes that the field of neurostimulation is an evolving and rapidly changing one that will lead to improved patient access, safety, and outcomes.

24. Chronic refractory angina pectoris.

Angina pectoris, cardiac pain associated with ischemia, is considered refractory when optimal anti-anginal therapy fails to resolve symptoms. It is associated with a decreased life expectancy and diminishes the quality of life. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) may be considered for patients who have also undergone comprehensive interventions, such as coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) procedures. The mechanism of action of SCS is not entirely clear. Pain reduction is related to the increased release of inhibitory neuropeptides as well as normalization of the intrinsic nerve system of the heart muscle, and may have a protective myocardial effect. SCS in patients with refractory angina pectoris results in reduced anginal attacks as well as improved rate pressure product prior to the occurrence of ischemic events. This may be the result of reduced Myocardial Volume Oxygen (MVO(2) ) and possibly the redistribution of the coronary blood flow to ischemic areas. There are a number of studies that demonstrate that SCS does not mask acute myocardial infarction. The efficacy of the treatment has been investigated in two prospective, randomized studies. The long-term results showed an improvement of the symptoms and of the quality of life. SCS can be an alternative to surgical intervention in a selected patient population. In addition, SCS is a viable option in patients in whom surgery is not possible. SCS is recommended in patients with chronic refractory angina pectoris that does not respond to conventional treatment and in whom revascularization procedures have been attempted or not possible, and who are optimized from a medical perspective.

Review of occupational medicine practice guidelines for interventional pain management and potential implications.

In the modern day environment, workers' compensation costs continue to be a challenge, with a need to balance costs, benefits, and quality of medical care. The cost of workers' compensation care affects all stakeholders including workers, employers, providers, regulators, legislators, and insurers. Consequently, a continued commitment to quality, accessibility to care, and cost containment will help ensure that workers are afforded accessible, high quality, and cost-effective care. In 2004, workers' compensation programs in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and federal programs in the United States combined received an income of $87.4 billion while paying out only $56 billion in medical and cash benefits with $31.4 billion or 37% in administrative expenses and profit. Occupational diseases represented only 8% of the workers' compensation claims and 29% of the cost. The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) has published several guidelines; though widely adopted by WCPs, these guidelines evaluate the practice of medicine of multiple specialties without adequate expertise and expert input from the concerned specialties, including interventional pain management. An assessment of the ACOEM guidelines utilizing Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria, the criteria developed by the American Medical Association (AMA), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), and other significantly accepted criteria, consistently showed very low scores (< 30%) in most aspects of the these guidelines. The ACOEM recommendations do not appear to have been based on a careful review of the literature, overall quality of evidence, standard of care, or expert consensus. Based on the evaluation utilizing appropriate and current evidence-based medicine (EBM) principles, the evidence ratings for diagnostic techniques of lumbar discography; cervical, thoracic, and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and sacroiliac joint nerve blocks; therapeutic cervical and lumbar medial branch blocks and radiofrequency neurolysis; cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections, caudal epidural steroid injections, and lumbar transforaminal epidural injections; caudal percutaneous adhesiolysis; abd spinal cord stimulation were found to be moderate with strong recommendation applying for most patients in most circumstances. The evidence ratings for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), an automated percutaneous disc decompression and also deserve further scrutiny and analysis. In conclusion, these ACOEM guidelines for interventional pain management have no applicability in modern patient care due to lack of expertise by the developing organization (ACOEM), lack of utilization of appropriate and current EBM principles, and lack of significant involvement of experts in these techniques resulting in a lack of clinical relevance. Thus, they may result in reduced medical quality of care; may severely hinder access to appropriate, medically needed and essential medical care; and finally, they may increase costs for injured workers, third party payors, and the government by transferring the injured worker into a non-productive disability system.

The psychological behaviorism theory of pain and the placebo: its principles and results of research application.

The psychological behaviorism theory of pain unifies biological, behavioral, and cognitive-behavioral theories of pain and facilitates development of a common vocabulary for pain research across disciplines. Pain investigation proceeds in seven interacting realms: basic biology, conditioned learning, language cognition, personality differences, pain behavior, the social environment, and emotions. Because pain is an emotional response, examining the bidirectional impact of emotion is pivotal to understanding pain. Emotion influences each of the other areas of interest and causes the impact of each factor to amplify or diminish in an additive fashion. Research based on this theory of pain has revealed the ameliorating impact on pain of (1) improving mood by engaging in pleasant sexual fantasies, (2) reducing anxiety, and (3) reducing anger through various techniques. Application of the theory to therapy improved the results of treatment of osteoarthritic pain. The psychological behaviorism theory of the placebo considers the placebo a stimulus conditioned to elicit a positive emotional response. This response is most powerful if it is elicited by conditioned language. Research based on this theory of the placebo that pain is ameliorated by a placebo suggestion and augmented by a nocebo suggestion and that pain sensitivity and pain anxiety increase susceptibility to a placebo.