Nocebo response in dentistry: A systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse events in analgesic trials of third molar removal.

BACKGROUND: The nocebo response refers to the phenomenon where non-specific factors, including negative verbal suggestion and treatment expectations, cause adverse events (AE) following a placebo treatment. Non-specific factors are also likely to influence AE occurrence following administration of active pharmacological treatments. OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the nocebo response in dentistry by assessing the AEs prevalence in placebo- and active arms of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing analgesic treatment following third molar (M3) surgery. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies had to report the number of patients experiencing at least one drug-related AE (patients with AE ≥ 1) separately for the active and placebo arms. The proportion of patients with AE ≥ 1 and drug-related dropouts were pooled, and risk differences (RDs) between patients in the placebo- and active arm were calculated. RESULTS: In 50 independent RCTs of 47 identified articles, the pooled rates of patients with AE ≥ 1 were 22.8% in the placebo arm and 20.6% in the active arm. The pooled rates of drug-related dropout were 0.24% in the placebo arm and 0.08% in the active arm. There were no significant RDs in patients with AE ≥ 1 and drug-related dropouts. CONCLUSION: These results show that patients in the placebo arm reported AEs to the same extent as patients receiving active treatment, suggesting that most AEs in analgesic medication following M3 surgery may be attributed to the nocebo phenomenon.

Chronic pain: an update on burden, best practices, and new advances.

Chronic pain exerts an enormous personal and economic burden, affecting more than 30% of people worldwide according to some studies. Unlike acute pain, which carries survival value, chronic pain might be best considered to be a disease, with treatment (eg, to be active despite the pain) and psychological (eg, pain acceptance and optimism as goals) implications. Pain can be categorised as nociceptive (from tissue injury), neuropathic (from nerve injury), or nociplastic (from a sensitised nervous system), all of which affect work-up and treatment decisions at every level; however, in practice there is considerable overlap in the different types of pain mechanisms within and between patients, so many experts consider pain classification as a continuum. The biopsychosocial model of pain presents physical symptoms as the denouement of a dynamic interaction between biological, psychological, and social factors. Although it is widely known that pain can cause psychological distress and sleep problems, many medical practitioners do not realise that these associations are bidirectional. While predisposing factors and consequences of chronic pain are well known, the flipside is that factors promoting resilience, such as emotional support systems and good health, can promote healing and reduce pain chronification. Quality of life indicators and neuroplastic changes might also be reversible with adequate pain management. Clinical trials and guidelines typically recommend a personalised multimodal, interdisciplinary treatment approach, which might include pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, integrative treatments, and invasive procedures.

Do Side Effects to the Primary COVID-19 Vaccine Reduce Intentions for a COVID-19 Vaccine Booster?

BACKGROUND: Vaccines are being administered worldwide to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine boosters are essential for maintaining immunity and protecting against virus variants. The side effects of the primary COVID-19 vaccine (e.g., headache, nausea), however, could reduce intentions to repeat the vaccination experience, thereby hindering global inoculation efforts. PURPOSE: The aim of this research was to test whether side effects of a primary COVID-19 vaccine relate to reduced intentions to receive a COVID-19 booster. The secondary aim was to test whether psychological and demographic factors predict booster intentions. METHODS: Secondary data analyses were conducted on a U.S. national sample of 551 individuals recruited through the online platform Prolific. Key measures in the dataset were side effects reported from a primary COVID-19 vaccination and subsequent intentions to receive a booster vaccine. Psychological and demographic variables that predicted primary vaccination intentions in prior studies were also measured. RESULTS: Booster intentions were high. COVID-19 booster vaccine intentions were uncorrelated with the number of side effects, intensity of side effects, or occurrence of an intense side effect from the primary COVID-19 vaccine. Correlational and regression analyses indicated intentions for a booster vaccination increased with positive vaccination attitudes, trust in vaccine development, worry about the COVID-19 pandemic, low concern over vaccine side effects, and democratic political party affiliation. CONCLUSIONS: Side effects of a primary COVID-19 vaccine were not directly associated with lower intentions to receive a booster of the COVID-19 vaccine early in the pandemic. However, many variables that predict primary vaccination intentions also predict booster intentions.

What is the nocebo effect and does it apply to dentistry?-A narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for the nocebo effect, a phenomenon characterised by suboptimal treatment efficacy, worsening of symptoms, or the occurrence of adverse events caused by an individual's negative treatment expectations, is growing across a multitude of medical fields. However, little attention has been paid to patients' negative expectations and the nocebo effect within dentistry. AIM: This review summarises essential evidence of the nocebo phenomenon especially in relation to pain and drug administration. Subsequently, an overview of the current evidence of the nocebo phenomenon in the dental field is presented. METHODS: A PubMed search was performed using keywords related to "nocebo," "placebo," "expectations," and "dentistry." In addition to the articles selected from the search, placebo/nocebo researchers and dental researchers added important references from their respective fields. RESULTS: Although research on the nocebo effect in dentistry is limited, available current evidence suggests that the factors, which is related to the nocebo effect are likely to play a role in dental practice. CONCLUSION: Preliminary evidence from the review warrants further investigation into the nocebo effect in dentistry. Finally, based on the general knowledge of the nocebo effect, the review indicates fruitful arrays of research into the nocebo effect in dentistry.

The Effect of Temporal Information on Placebo Analgesia and Nocebo Hyperalgesia.

OBJECTIVE: Expectations are known to be key determinants of placebo and nocebo phenomena. In previous studies, verbal suggestions to induce such expectations have mainly focused on the direction and magnitude of the effect, whereas little is known about the influence of temporal information. METHODS: Using an experimental placebo and nocebo design, we investigated whether information about the expected onset of a treatment effect modulates the start and time course of analgesic and hyperalgesic responses. Healthy volunteers (n = 166) in three placebo and three nocebo groups were informed that the application of an (inert) cream would reduce (placebo groups) or amplify pain (nocebo groups) after 5, 15, or 30 minutes. Two control groups were also included (natural history and no expectations). Participants' pain intensity rating of electrical stimuli administered before and 10, 20, and 35 minutes after cream application was obtained. RESULTS: Mixed-method analysis of variance showed a significant interaction between group and time (F(12,262) = 18.172, p < .001, pη2 = 0.454), suggesting that pain variations differed across time points and between groups. Post hoc comparisons revealed that the placebo and nocebo groups began to show a significantly larger change in perceived pain intensity than the no-expectancy control group at the expected time point (p < .05) but not earlier (p > .05). Once triggered, the analgesic effect remained constant over the course of the experiment, whereas the hyperalgesic effect increased over time. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that temporal suggestions can shape expectancy-related treatment effects, which, if used systematically, could open up new ways to optimize treatment outcome.

Assessment of pain associated with chronic pancreatitis: An international consensus guideline.

Pain is the most common symptom in chronic pancreatitis (CP) with a major impact on quality of life. Few validated questionnaires to assess pain in CP exist, and the lack of consensus negatively impacts clinical management, research and meta-analysis. This guideline aims to review generic pain questionnaires for their usability in CP, to outline how pain assessment can be modified by confounding factors and pain types, to assess the value of additional measures such as quality of life, mental health and quantitative sensory testing, and finally to review pain assessment questionnaires used specifically in CP. A systematic review was done to answer 27 questions that followed the PICO (Population; Intervention; Comparator; Outcome) template. Quality of evidence of the statements was judged by Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. The manuscript was sent for review to 36 experts from various disciplines and continents in a multi-stage Delphi process, and finally reviewed by patient representatives. Main findings were that generic pain instruments are valid in most settings, but aspects of pain are specific for CP (including in children), and instruments have to account for the wide phenotypic variability and development of sensitization of the central nervous system. Side effects to treatment and placebo effects shall also be considered. Some multidimensional questionnaires are validated for CP and are recommended together with assessment of quality of life and psychiatric co-morbidities. This guideline will result in more homogeneous and comprehensive pain assessment to potentially improve management of painful CP.

What Should Clinicians Tell Patients about Placebo and Nocebo Effects? Practical Considerations Based on Expert Consensus.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical and laboratory studies demonstrate that placebo and nocebo effects influence various symptoms and conditions after the administration of both inert and active treatments. OBJECTIVE: There is an increasing need for up-to-date recommendations on how to inform patients about placebo and nocebo effects in clinical practice and train clinicians how to disclose this information. METHODS: Based on previous clinical recommendations concerning placebo and nocebo effects, a 3-step, invitation-only Delphi study was conducted among an interdisciplinary group of internationally recognized experts. The study consisted of open- and closed-ended survey questions followed by a final expert meeting. The surveys were subdivided into 3 parts: (1) informing patients about placebo effects, (2) informing patients about nocebo effects, and (3) training clinicians how to communicate this information to the patients. RESULTS: There was consensus that communicating general information about placebo and nocebo effects to patients (e.g., explaining their role in treatment) could be beneficial, but that such information needs to be adjusted to match the specific clinical context (e.g., condition and treatment). Experts also agreed that training clinicians to communicate about placebo and nocebo effects should be a regular and integrated part of medical education that makes use of multiple formats, including face-to-face and online modalities. CONCLUSIONS: The current 3-step Delphi study provides consensus-based recommendations and practical considerations for disclosures about placebo and nocebo effects in clinical practice. Future research is needed on how to optimally tailor information to specific clinical conditions and patients' needs, and on developing standardized disclosure training modules for clinicians.

Implanted spinal neuromodulation interventions for chronic pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Implanted spinal neuromodulation (SNMD) techniques are used in the treatment of refractory chronic pain. They involve the implantation of electrodes around the spinal cord (spinal cord stimulation (SCS)) or dorsal root ganglion (dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS)), and a pulse generator unit under the skin. Electrical stimulation is then used with the aim of reducing pain intensity. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness, adverse events, and cost-effectiveness of implanted spinal neuromodulation interventions for people with chronic pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Web of Science (ISI), Health Technology Assessments, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry from inception to September 2021 without language restrictions, searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SNMD interventions with placebo (sham) stimulation, no treatment or usual care; or comparing SNMD interventions + another treatment versus that treatment alone. We included participants ≥ 18 years old with non-cancer and non-ischaemic pain of longer than three months duration. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were disability, analgesic medication use, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health economic outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened database searches to determine inclusion, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias for prespecified results using the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Outcomes were evaluated at short- (≤ one month), medium- four to eight months) and long-term (≥12 months). Where possible we conducted meta-analyses. We used the GRADE system to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 unique published studies that randomised 908 participants, and 20 unique ongoing studies. All studies evaluated SCS. We found no eligible published studies of DRGS and no studies comparing SCS with no treatment or usual care. We rated all results evaluated as being at high risk of bias overall. For all comparisons and outcomes where we found evidence, we graded the certainty of the evidence as low or very low, downgraded due to limitations of studies, imprecision and in some cases, inconsistency. Active stimulation versus placebo SCS versus placebo (sham) Results were only available at short-term follow-up for this comparison. Pain intensity Six studies (N = 164) demonstrated a small effect in favour of SCS at short-term follow-up (0 to 100 scale, higher scores = worse pain, mean difference (MD) -8.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) -15.67 to -1.78, very low certainty). The point estimate falls below our predetermined threshold for a clinically important effect (≥10 points). No studies reported the proportion of participants experiencing 30% or 50% pain relief for this comparison. Adverse events (AEs) The quality and inconsistency of adverse event reporting in these studies precluded formal analysis. Active stimulation + other intervention versus other intervention alone SCS + other intervention versus other intervention alone (open-label studies) Pain intensity Mean difference Three studies (N = 303) demonstrated a potentially clinically important mean difference in favour of SCS of -37.41 at short term (95% CI -46.39 to -28.42, very low certainty), and medium-term follow-up (5 studies, 635 participants, MD -31.22 95% CI -47.34 to -15.10 low-certainty), and no clear evidence for an effect of SCS at long-term follow-up (1 study, 44 participants, MD -7 (95% CI -24.76 to 10.76, very low-certainty). Proportion of participants reporting ≥50% pain relief We found an effect in favour of SCS at short-term (2 studies, N = 249, RR 15.90, 95% CI 6.70 to 37.74, I2 0% ; risk difference (RD) 0.65 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.74, very low certainty), medium term (5 studies, N = 597, RR 7.08, 95 %CI 3.40 to 14.71, I2 = 43%; RD 0.43, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.73, low-certainty evidence), and long term (1 study, N = 87, RR 15.15, 95% CI 2.11 to 108.91 ; RD 0.35, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.49, very low certainty) follow-up. Adverse events (AEs) Device related No studies specifically reported  device-related adverse events at short-term follow-up. At medium-term follow-up, the incidence of lead failure/displacement (3 studies N = 330) ranged from 0.9 to 14% (RD 0.04, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.11, I2 64%, very low certainty). The incidence of infection (4 studies, N = 548) ranged from 3 to 7% (RD 0.04, 95%CI 0.01, 0.07, I2 0%, very low certainty). The incidence of reoperation/reimplantation (4 studies, N =5 48) ranged from 2% to 31% (RD 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, I2 86%, very low certainty). One study (N = 44) reported a 55% incidence of lead failure/displacement (RD 0.55, 95% CI 0.35, 0 to 75, very low certainty), and a 94% incidence of reoperation/reimplantation (RD 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07, very low certainty) at five-year follow-up. No studies provided data on infection rates at long-term follow-up. We found reports of some serious adverse events as a result of the intervention. These included autonomic neuropathy, prolonged hospitalisation, prolonged monoparesis, pulmonary oedema, wound infection, device extrusion and one death resulting from subdural haematoma. Other No studies reported the incidence of other adverse events at short-term follow-up. We found no clear evidence of a difference in otherAEs at medium-term (2 studies, N = 278, RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.06, I2 0%) or long term (1 study, N = 100, RD -0.17, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.02) follow-up. Very limited evidence suggested that SCS increases healthcare costs. It was not clear whether SCS was cost-effective. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low-certainty evidence that SCS may not provide clinically important benefits on pain intensity compared to placebo stimulation. We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that SNMD interventions may provide clinically important benefits for pain intensity when added to conventional medical management or physical therapy. SCS is associated with complications including infection, electrode lead failure/migration and a need for reoperation/re-implantation. The level of certainty regarding the size of those risks is very low. SNMD may lead to serious adverse events, including death. We found no evidence to support or refute the use of DRGS for chronic pain.

Modulation of experimental facial pain via somatosensory stimuli targeting sensations of different valence.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of pain modulation from oro-facial somatosensory stimuli with different valence (pleasant-unpleasant) is limited. OBJECTIVES: To investigate (a) the modulatory effects of painful, pleasant and unpleasant somatosensory stimuli on two models of experimental facial pain, (b) whether modulation could be changed by blocking peripheral nerves via application of a local anaesthetic, EMLA, or blocking endogenous opioid receptors via naltrexone and (c) whether pain ratings were significantly correlated with participant psychological profiles. METHODS: Thirty-eight healthy women received experimental facial skin burning pain or jaw myalgia for four randomised sessions on different days. The painful region was stimulated with mechanical or thermal painful, pleasant, unpleasant and control stimuli, with ratings recorded before and during stimulation. Sessions differed in pre-treatment: EMLA/naltrexone/placebo tablet/cream. RESULTS: Significant effects of thermal or mechanical stimuli (P < .017), but not session (P > .102), were found on pain ratings for both models. In myalgia, painful cold resulted in a greater reduction in pain ratings than unpleasant cold, pleasant cold, control and pleasant warmth (P < .004). Decreases in pain ratings from painful, unpleasant and pleasant mechanical stimuli were greater than control (P < .002). In burning pain, painful cold resulted in a greater reduction in pain ratings than all but one of the other thermal stimuli (P < .033). The pleasant mechanical stimulus reduced pain ratings more than all other mechanical stimuli (P ≤ .003). There were no significant correlations between pain and psychometrics. CONCLUSION: Valence-targeted thermal and mechanical stimuli modulated experimental myalgia and skin burning pain (P < .017). Partially blocking peripheral afferents or opioid receptors did not affect modulation.

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).

The placebo response in myasthenia gravis assessed by quantitative myasthenia gravis score: A meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This meta-analysis investigates the placebo response in generalized myasthenia gravis (MG) trials by means of Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) scores. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, and EMBASE were searched. QMG score, dropouts rate, adverse events (AEs), and AEs responsible for dropouts were examined, together with treatment moderators. RESULTS: The magnitude of placebo response showed an effect size of 0.24, which was significantly lower than 0.67 of the drug response (P = 0.019). Furthermore, the forest plot revealed that, overall, active treatments showed a significantly higher impact on QMG scores than placebos. CONCLUSIONS: Placebo and drug responses in MG trials are small and moderate, respectively. The lack of MG trials with a pure placebo arm or a no-treatment control arm made it impossible to disentangle improvements due to the placebo psychological effect from other effects such as natural history and/or regression to the mean. Muscle Nerve 59:671-678, 2019.

A Positive Mood Induction for Reducing the Formation of Nocebo Effects from Side Effect Information.

BACKGROUND: Providing treatment side effect information can increase the occurrence of side effects through nocebo effects. Nocebo effects from side effect information raise a dilemma for health care, as there is an ethical obligation to disclose potential unpleasant treatment information to patients. PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that a positive mood induction can block the development of nocebo effects that result from treatment side effect information. METHODS: In a laboratory setting, healthy participants were assigned to one of four conditions in a between-subjects randomized factorial trial. First, participants took part in a mood induction procedure, with half receiving a positive mood induction and the other half a neutral mood induction. Next, participants were told they would experience transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Prior to a sham tDCS task, half of the participants were informed that headache pain is a side effect of tDCS, whereas the other half were not given this information. RESULTS: In the neutral mood condition, the provision of headache side effect information lead to a greater occurrence of headaches, more frequent headaches, and a higher maximum level of headache pain as compared to those given no side effect information. In the positive mood condition, a similar increase in headache pain did not manifest from the provision of side effect information. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first experiment to find that a positive mood induction can block the formation of nocebo effects that arise from side effect information. Inducing positive moods may be an effective strategy for reducing nocebo effects in a variety of clinical settings.

Pain, placebo, and test of treatment efficacy: a narrative review.

Over the past decade, the mechanisms underlying placebo effects have begun to be identified. At the same time, the placebo response appears to have increased in pharmacological trials and marked placebo effects are found in neurostimulation and surgical trials, thereby posing the question whether non-pharmacological interventions should be placebo-controlled to a greater extent. In this narrative review we discuss how the knowledge of placebo mechanisms may help to improve placebo control in pharmacological and non-pharmacological trials. We review the psychological, neurobiological, and genetic mechanisms underlying placebo analgesia and outline the current problems and potential solutions to the challenges with placebo control in trials on pharmacological, neurostimulation, and surgical interventions. We particularly focus on how patients' perception of the therapeutic intervention, and their expectations towards treatment efficacy may help develop more precise placebo controls and blinding procedures and account for the contribution of placebo factors to the efficacy of active treatments. Finally, we discuss how systematic investigations into placebo mechanisms across various pain conditions and types of treatment are needed in order to 'personalise' the placebo control to the specific pathophysiology and interventions, which may ultimately lead to identification of more effective treatment for pain patients. In conclusion this review shows that it is important to understand how patients' perception and expectations influence the efficacy of active and placebo treatments in order to improve the test of new treatments. Importantly, this applies not only to assessment of drug efficacy but also to non-pharmacological trials on surgeries and stimulation procedures.

Implications of Placebo and Nocebo Effects for Clinical Practice: Expert Consensus.

BACKGROUND: Placebo and nocebo effects occur in clinical or laboratory medical contexts after administration of an inert treatment or as part of active treatments and are due to psychobiological mechanisms such as expectancies of the patient. Placebo and nocebo studies have evolved from predominantly methodological research into a far-reaching interdisciplinary field that is unravelling the neurobiological, behavioural and clinical underpinnings of these phenomena in a broad variety of medical conditions. As a consequence, there is an increasing demand from health professionals to develop expert recommendations about evidence-based and ethical use of placebo and nocebo effects for clinical practice. METHODS: A survey and interdisciplinary expert meeting by invitation was organized as part of the 1st Society for Interdisciplinary Placebo Studies (SIPS) conference in 2017. Twenty-nine internationally recognized placebo researchers participated. RESULTS: There was consensus that maximizing placebo effects and minimizing nocebo effects should lead to better treatment outcomes with fewer side effects. Experts particularly agreed on the importance of informing patients about placebo and nocebo effects and training health professionals in patient-clinician communication to maximize placebo and minimize nocebo effects. CONCLUSIONS: The current paper forms a first step towards developing evidence-based and ethical recommendations about the implications of placebo and nocebo research for medical practice, based on the current state of evidence and the consensus of experts. Future research might focus on how to implement these recommendations, including how to optimize conditions for educating patients about placebo and nocebo effects and providing training for the implementation in clinical practice.

Lessons Learned From Nocebo Effects in Clinical Trials for Pain Conditions and Neurodegenerative Disorders.

It has been demonstrated that patients in the placebo arm of a clinical trial may experience adverse events (AEs), which may lead to nonadherence and dropout. However, so far, it is unknown to which extent this phenomenon is observed consistently across different diseases such as pain and neurodegenerative disorders.The current review shows for the first time that different diseases share a common risk for patients in terms of a negative outcome: a large percentage of placebo-treated patients experience AEs in pain conditions (up to 59%) and neurodegenerative disorders (up to 66%). In addition, the rate of patients who discontinue because of AEs is up to 10% and 11% in pain conditions and neurodegenerative disorders, respectively.We highlight methodological shortcomings with the aim of suggesting how the detection and reporting of AEs can be improved in future trials. The insights from the current review should be taken into consideration when designing clinical trials to tailor individualized treatments.

Experimental orofacial pain and sensory deprivation lead to perceptual distortion of the face in healthy volunteers.

Patients suffering from persistent orofacial pain may sporadically report that the painful area feels "swollen" or "differently," a phenomenon that may be conceptualized as a perceptual distortion because there are no clinical signs of swelling present. Our aim was to investigate whether standardized experimental pain and sensory deprivation of specific orofacial test sites would lead to changes in the size perception of these face areas. Twenty-four healthy participants received either 0.2 mL hypertonic saline (HS) or local anesthetics (LA) into six regions (buccal, mental, lingual, masseter muscle, infraorbital and auriculotemporal nerve regions). Participants estimated the perceived size changes in percentage (0 % = no change, -100 % = half the size or +100 % = double the size), and somatosensory function was checked with tactile stimuli. The pain intensity was rated on a 0-10 Verbal Numerical Rating Scale (VNRS), and sets of psychological questionnaires were completed. HS and LA were associated with significant self-reported perceptual distortions as indicated by consistent increases in perceived size of the adjacent face areas (P ≤ 0.050). Perceptual distortion was most pronounced in the buccal region, and the smallest increase was observed in the auriculotemporal region. HS was associated with moderate levels of pain VNRS = 7.3 ± 0.6. Weak correlations were found between HS-evoked perceptual distortion and level of dissociation in two regions (P < 0.050). Experimental pain and transient sensory deprivation evoked perceptual distortions in all face regions and overall demonstrated the importance of afferent inputs for the perception of the face. We propose that perceptual distortion may be an important phenomenon to consider in persistent orofacial pain conditions.

Placebo effects in idiopathic and neuropathic pain conditions.

The magnitude of placebo analgesia effect appears to be large in chronic pain patients experiencing hyperalgesic states. So far, placebo effects have primarily been investigated in idiopathic pain conditions, such as irritable bowel pain syndrome, but more recently they have also been investigated in neuropathic pain patients, in which the underlying nerve injury is known. Expected pain levels and emotional feelings are central to placebo effects in both types of pain. They appear to help patients to engage in a mindset for pain relief and activate the pain-modulating system. Furthermore, expectations, emotional feelings, and the experience of pain seem to interact over time, thereby maintaining or enhancing the pain-relieving effect. Expectations and emotional feelings also contribute to the effect of active drugs, and recent studies indicate that drug effects and placebo effects interact in ways that may complicate the interpretations of the findings from clinical trials. It is suggested that expectations and emotional feelings may act as additional or alternative measures in the testing of new pharmacological agents, thereby improving the understanding of the interaction between pharmacological effects and placebo effects, which may have far-reaching implications for research and clinical practice.