Reciprocal relationships between positive expectancies and positive emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-lagged panel study.

INTRODUCTION: Previous research highlighted the importance of investigating distinct protective factors that predict the experience of positive emotions during stressful situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In this longitudinal study, we specifically focused on positive expectancies towards the future (optimism, response expectancy, and response hope) in relation to the experience of positive emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our primary objectives were to identify the best predictors for experiencing short-term and long-term positive emotions and investigate their interrelationships. METHODS: Data from 271 participants (average age = 29.2 years, 84.7% female) were analyzed using four cross-lagged models. RESULTS: Results showed that response expectancy was the best predictor for experiencing positive emotions in the short term, while optimism was the best predictor for experiencing positive emotions in the long term. Additionally, through further exploratory analysis, multiple bidirectional relationships were identified between positive expectancies and positive emotions. DISCUSSION: Our results highlight the significant role played by positive expectancies in predicting the experience of positive emotions. Specifically, dispositional optimism emerged as a stronger predictor of longer-term positive emotions, whereas response expectancy proved to be a better predictor of shorter-term positive emotions. Thus, interventions targeting positive expectancies have the potential to enhance emotional functioning in individuals during challenging situations like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Response expectancy positively predicts positive emotions in the short term.Optimism positively predicts positive emotions in the long term.Response expectancy positively predicts optimism in the short and long term.Response expectancy positively predicts response hope in the short term.Response hope negatively predicts optimism in the short and long term.Positive emotions positively predict positive expectancies (response expectancy, response hope, and optimism) on short term.The discrepancy score negatively predicts positive emotions in the short term.The discrepancy score negatively predicts optimism in the short and long term.

The relationship between transliminality, hypnotic and imaginative suggestibility, and other personality traits.

To our knowledge, no study has directly examined the link between hypnotic response and the personality trait of transliminality (which is underpinned, for example, by magical ideation, mystical experience, fantasy proneness, absorption, hyperaesthesia). In order to further understand the correlates of suggestibility, the aim of the current project was to investigate whether transliminality is associated with hypnotic and imaginative suggestibility (considering: objective response, subjective response and involuntariness). Another aim was to assess the contribution of transliminality as a predictor of suggestibility when a range of previously studied personality trait measures were considered. Participants completed: the Revised Transliminality Scale, Tellegen Absorption Scale, Creative Experiences Questionnaire, and the Dissociative Experiences Scale II. To avoid context effects, where knowledge or measurement of one trait or ability might influence measurement of another, a separate standalone study was conducted where hypnotic and imaginative (without hypnosis) suggestibility screenings were carried out in-person in small groups using the modified Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale. The merging of these two datasets enabled the analyses. Transliminality was weakly correlated with the imaginative suggestibility subjective response measure (r = 0.19). Likewise, weak correlations were found between transliminality and the hypnotic suggestibility response measures (objective, r = 0.21, subjective, r = 0.23, involuntariness, r = 0.24). The multiple regressions (forward selection) reflected the pattern of correlations, with no model for any of the variables, retaining more than a single significant predictor. In summary, this study combination, avoiding context effects, shows transliminality to be a weak predictor of response to suggestion.

A qualitative study of imaginary pills and open-label placebos in test anxiety.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of open-label placebos (OLPs) has been increasingly demonstrated and their use holds promise for applications compatible with basic ethical principles. Taking this concept one step further an imaginary pill (IP) intervention without the use of a physical pill was developed and tested in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). To explore participants' experiences and views, we conducted the first qualitative study in the field of IPs. METHODS: A reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) of semi-structured interviews with test anxious students (N = 20) was nested in an RCT investigating an IP and OLP intervention. In addition, open-ended questions from the RCT were evaluated (N = 114) to corroborate the RTA and pill characteristics were included to more accurately capture the IP experience. RESULTS: Four key themes were identified: (1) attitude towards the intervention, (2) applicability of the intervention, (3) experience of effects, and (4) characteristics of the imagination. The IP intervention was well-accepted, easily applicable, and various effects, pill characteristics and appearances were described. While many participants did not desire a physical pill, either due to the absence of the imagination component or aversion to pills, the approach was considered to be cognitively and time demanding, which in turn, however, encouraged the establishment of a therapeutic ritual that protected against the increase in test anxiety during the preparation phase. OLP findings were comparable, and especially the importance of a treatment rationale was stressed in both groups, counteracting an initial ambivalent attitude. The RTA findings were supported by the open-ended questions of the RCT. CONCLUSION: IPs appear to be a well-accepted and easily applicable intervention producing a variety of beneficial effects. Thus, the IP approach might serve as an imaginary based alternative to OLPs warranting further investigations on its application to harness placebo effects without a physical pill.

What are the treatment remission, response and extent of improvement rates after up to four trials of antidepressant therapies in real-world depressed patients? A reanalysis of the STAR*D study's patient-level data with fidelity to the original research protocol.

OBJECTIVE: Reanalyse the patient-level data set of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study with fidelity to the original research protocol and related publications. DESIGN: The study was open label and semirandomised examining the effectiveness of up to four optimised and increasingly aggressive, antidepressant therapies in depressed adults. Patients who failed to gain adequate relief from their level 1 trial on the SSRI citalopram could receive up to three additional treatment trials in levels 2-4. SETTING: 41 North American psychiatry and primary care treatment centres. PARTICIPANTS: 4041 adults screened positive for major depressive disorder. In contrast to most clinical trials, STAR*D enrolled patients seeking care (vs recruited) and included patients with a wide range of common comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions to enhance the generalisability of findings to real-world clinical practice. INTERVENTIONS: STAR*D evaluated the relative effectiveness of 13 antidepressants therapies in treatment levels 2-4 for depressed patients who failed to gain adequate benefit from their level 1 medication trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: According to the STAR*D protocol, the primary outcome was remission, defined as a score <8 on the blinded Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD). Response was a secondary outcome defined as ≥50% reduction in HRSD scores. STAR*D's protocol specifically excluded all non-blinded clinic-administered assessments from use as research outcome measures. RESULTS: STAR*D investigators did not use the protocol-stipulated HRSD to report cumulative remission and response rates in their summary article and instead used a non-blinded clinic-administered assessment. This inflated their report of outcomes, as did their inclusion of 99 patients who scored as remitted on the HRSD at study outset as well as 125 who scored as remitted when initiating their next-level treatment. These patients should have been excluded from data analysis. In contrast to the STAR*D-reported 67% cumulative remission rate after up to four antidepressant treatment trials, the rate was 35.0% when using the protocol-stipulated HRSD and inclusion in data analysis criteria. CONCLUSION: STAR*D's cumulative remission rate was approximately half of that reported.

Brain-to-brain mechanisms underlying pain empathy and social modulation of pain in the patient-clinician interaction.

Social interactions such as the patient-clinician encounter can influence pain, but the underlying dynamic interbrain processes are unclear. Here, we investigated the dynamic brain processes supporting social modulation of pain by assessing simultaneous brain activity (fMRI hyperscanning) from chronic pain patients and clinicians during video-based live interaction. Patients received painful and nonpainful pressure stimuli either with a supportive clinician present (Dyadic) or in isolation (Solo). In half of the dyads, clinicians performed a clinical consultation and intake with the patient prior to hyperscanning (Clinical Interaction), which increased self-reported therapeutic alliance. For the other half, patient-clinician hyperscanning was completed without prior clinical interaction (No Interaction). Patients reported lower pain intensity in the Dyadic, relative to the Solo, condition. In Clinical Interaction dyads relative to No Interaction, patients evaluated their clinicians as better able to understand their pain, and clinicians were more accurate when estimating patients' pain levels. In Clinical Interaction dyads, compared to No Interaction, patients showed stronger activation of the dorsolateral and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC and vlPFC) and primary (S1) and secondary (S2) somatosensory areas (Dyadic-Solo contrast), and clinicians showed increased dynamic dlPFC concordance with patients' S2 activity during pain. Furthermore, the strength of S2-dlPFC concordance was positively correlated with self-reported therapeutic alliance. These findings support that empathy and supportive care can reduce pain intensity and shed light on the brain processes underpinning social modulation of pain in patient-clinician interactions. Our findings further suggest that clinicians' dlPFC concordance with patients' somatosensory processing during pain can be boosted by increasing therapeutic alliance.

Placebos in pediatrics: A cross-sectional survey investigating physicians' perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: Placebo responses are significantly higher in children than in adults, suggesting a potential underused treatment option in pediatric care. To facilitate the clinical translation of these beneficial effects, we explored physicians' current practice, opinions, knowledge, and likelihood of recommending placebos in the future. METHODS: A cross-sectional web-based survey administered by REDCap was conducted at Boston Children's Hospital between October 2021 and March 2022. Physicians (n = 1157) were invited to participate through an email containing a link to a 23-item survey designed to assess physicians' attitudes and perceptions towards the clinical use of placebo in pediatrics. RESULTS: From 207 (18%) returned surveys, 109 (9%) were fully completed. Most respondents (79%) believed that enhancing the therapeutic components that contribute to the placebo response may be a way of improving pediatric care. However, whereas most (62%) found placebo treatments permissible, only one-third reported recommending them. In pediatrics, placebos are typically introduced as a medicine that "might help" (43%). The most common treatments recommended to enhance placebo effects are physical therapy, vitamins, and over-the-counter analgesics. Physicians most frequently recommend placebos for occasional pain, headaches, and anxiety disorders. Finally, the great majority of physicians (87%) stated they would be more likely to recommend placebo treatments if there were safety and ethical guidelines for open-label placebos. CONCLUSIONS: Placebo treatments seem permissible to physicians in pediatric care, but the development of safety and ethical guidelines may be necessary before physicians systematically incorporate the benefits of the placebo effect in pediatrics.

The risks of adverse events with venlafaxine and mirtazapine versus 'active placebo', placebo, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for two separate systematic reviews with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder causes a great burden on patients and societies. Venlafaxine and mirtazapine are commonly prescribed as second-line treatment for patients with major depressive disorder worldwide. Previous systematic reviews have concluded that venlafaxine and mirtazapine reduce depressive symptoms, but the effects seem small and may not be important to the average patient. Moreover, previous reviews have not systematically assessed the occurrence of adverse events. Therefore, we aim to investigate the risks of adverse events with venlafaxine or mirtazapine versus 'active placebo', placebo, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder in two separate systematic reviews. METHODS: This is a protocol for two systematic reviews with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis. The assessments of the effects of venlafaxine or mirtazapine will be reported in two separate reviews. The protocol is reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols, risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 2, clinical significance will be assessed using our eight-step procedure, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We will search for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases and trial registers. Two review authors will independently screen the results from the literature searches, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We will include published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing venlafaxine or mirtazapine with 'active placebo', placebo, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The primary outcomes will be suicides or suicide attempts, serious adverse events, and non-serious adverse events. Exploratory outcomes will include depressive symptoms, quality of life, and individual adverse events. If feasible, we will assess the intervention effects using random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. DISCUSSION: Venlafaxine and mirtazapine are frequently used as second-line treatment of major depressive disorder worldwide. There is a need for a thorough systematic review to provide the necessary background for weighing the benefits against the harms. This review will ultimately inform best practice in the treatment of major depressive disorder. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022315395.

Imaginary pills and open-label placebos can reduce test anxiety by means of placebo mechanisms.

Placebos have been shown to be beneficial for various conditions even if administered with full transparency. Hence, so-called open-label placebos (OLPs) offer a new way to harness placebo effects ethically. To take this concept one step further, this study aimed at evaluating placebo effects without the use of a physical placebo, i.e., by imagining taking a pill. Healthy students (N = 173) with self-reported test anxiety were either randomized to an imaginary pill (IP; n = 55), an OLP (n = 59) or a control group (CG; n = 59). Both intervention groups were instructed to take two pills daily for three weeks. Primary outcome was test anxiety, secondary outcomes were sleep quality, general well-being and test performance. Groups test anxiety differed at study-endpoint, F(2,169) = 11.50, p < .001. Test anxiety was lower in the intervention groups compared to the CG, t(169) = - 4.44, p < .001, d = - 0.71. The interventions did not differ significantly, i.e., both were similarly efficacious, t(169) = 0.61, p = .540, d = 0.11. The interaction between group and time in explaining test anxiety was significant, F(5,407.93) = 6.13, p < .001. OLPs and IPs reduced test anxiety in healthy participants compared to the CG. This finding opens the door for a novel and ethical method to harness placebo effects.

Clinical hypnosis as a nondeceptive placebo: empirically derived techniques.

Many psychological problems are maintained, in part, by dysfunctional response expectancies, and changing those expectations is an essential part of treatment. Hypnotic inductions alter response expectancies and have been shown empirically to substantially enhance the effects of psychotherapy. Therefore, hypnosis can be used therapeutically as a nondeceptive placebo. Expectancy plays a major role in hypnotic inductions and their effects. Clinical procedures suggested by these data are explored.

Can placebos reduce intrusive memories?

After traumatic experiences, intrusive memories can flash back and evoke significant distress. Here, we investigated whether the frequency and severity of intrusions can be reduced by the provision of placebo. After the (online) exposure to the trauma-film paradigm, healthy participants (N = 112) received deceptive placebo (DP), open-label placebo (OLP), or no treatment. In the DP group, participants were led to believe to receive a dopamine-modulating drug, which was supposed to disrupt the consolidation of traumatic memories, although they in fact received the same placebo tablets as the OLP group for one week. The results show that the groups did not differ in the frequency of intrusive memories after one week. However, participants receiving OLP reported a significantly reduced intensity of intrusions as compared to DP. Across groups, negative expectations about the intensity and controllability of intrusions were associated with a higher frequency of intrusions, higher distress, higher burden, and more negative appraisal. The results suggest that expectations play an important role in the emergence of intrusive memories and that some of the disabling aspects of intrusive memories can be reduced by placebo. This may carry clinical potential because placebos are an accessible, cost-effective intervention to reduce the risk of intrusive memories.

Expectations: How and when do they contribute to placebo analgesia?

In placebo research, expectations are highlighted as one of the most influential subjective factors. While some studies have shown a relationship between expectations and pain relief, others have not. However, little is known about how methods of assessment of expectations may affect these conclusions. One of the fundamental considerations is that participants in placebo trials rate their expectations when prompted to rate them on scales in advance, but are less likely to report their prior expectations, when asked to report their experience retroactively in an unprompted manner, often expressing, for example, prior hope or wishes of recovery. This article presents previously unpublished data to elucidate and explore the concepts highlighted by individuals in a placebo analgesia trial when assessed in a prompted and unprompted manner. The data corroborates the role of expectations involved in placebo effects, particularly in placebo analgesia. Thus, the question may be a matter of how and when expectations contribute to placebo effects, rather than if.

Remotely Provided Open-Label Placebo Reduces Frequency of and Impairment by Allergic Symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: Placebos being prescribed with full honesty and disclosure (i.e., open-label placebo [OLP]) have been shown to reduce symptom burden in a variety of conditions. With regard to allergic rhinitis, previous research provided inconclusive evidence for the effects of OLP, possibly related to a separate focus on either symptom severity or symptom frequency. Overcoming this limitation of previous research, the present study aimed to examine the effects of OLP on both the severity and frequency of allergic symptoms. METHODS: In a randomized-controlled trial, patients with allergic rhinitis ( N = 74) were randomized to OLP or treatment as usual (TAU). Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, OLP was administered remotely in a virtual clinical encounter. Participants took placebo tablets for 14 days. The primary outcomes were the severity and frequency of allergic symptoms. The secondary end point was allergy-related impairment. RESULTS: OLP did not significantly improve symptom severity over TAU ( F (1,71) = 3.280, p = .074, η2 = 0.044) but did reduce symptom frequency ( F (1,71) = 7.272, p = .009, η2 = 0.093) and allergy-related impairment more than TAU ( F (1,71) = 6.445, p = .013, η2 = 0.083), reflecting medium to large effects. The use of other antiallergic medication did not influence the results. CONCLUSIONS: Although OLP was able to lower the frequency of allergic symptoms and allergy-related impairment substantially, its effects on symptom severity were weaker. The remote provision of OLP suggests that physical contact between patients and providers might not be necessary for OLP to work.

Response to acute monotherapy for major depressive disorder in randomized, placebo controlled trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration: individual participant data analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize individual participant level response distributions to acute monotherapy for major depressive disorder in randomized, placebo controlled trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration from 1979 to 2016. DESIGN: Individual participant data analysis. POPULATION: 232 randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trials of drug monotherapy for major depressive disorder submitted by drug developers to the FDA between 1979 and 2016, comprising 73 388 adult and child participants meeting the inclusion criteria for efficacy studies on antidepressants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses were converted to Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD17) equivalent scores where other measures were used to assess efficacy. Multivariable analyses examined the effects of age, sex, baseline severity, and year of the study on improvements in depressive symptoms in the antidepressant and placebo groups. Response distributions were analyzed with finite mixture models. RESULTS: The random effects mean difference between drug and placebo favored drug (1.75 points, 95% confidence interval 1.63 to 1.86). Differences between drug and placebo increased significantly (P<0.001) with greater baseline severity. After controlling for participant characteristics at baseline, no trends in treatment effect or placebo response over time were found. The best fitting model of response distributions was three normal distributions, with mean improvements from baseline to end of treatment of 16.0, 8.9, and 1.7 points. These distributions were designated Large, Non-specific, and Minimal responses, respectively. Participants who were treated with a drug were more likely to have a Large response (24.5% v 9.6%) and less likely to have a Minimal response (12.2.% v 21.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The trimodal response distributions suggests that about 15% of participants have a substantial antidepressant effect beyond a placebo effect in clinical trials, highlighting the need for predictors of meaningful responses specific to drug treatment.

The Proposed Task Force Hypnosis Efficacy Guidelines: The Role of Moderation and Mediation in Efficacy Trials.

Hypnosis interventions have too often failed to disseminate, in part because of the relatively few high-quality, randomized clinical trials. The Task Force proposes efficacy guidelines, which are intended to improve the quality of clinical hypnosis research and thereby increase dissemination of beneficial hypnosis interventions. However, the Task Force, in muddying the focus on efficacy with opinions about moderation and mediation, proposes guidelines that are likely to: (1) weaken efficacy findings; (2) increase participant mistrust; (3) make efficacy trials more cumbersome; and, (4) treat hypnosis as though it were something other than a time-honored form of talk therapy. While applauding the Task Force's intentions, the current recommendations could be changed to better accomplish their goal of increasing hypnosis dissemination and implementation.

Psychological Predictors of Response to Open-Label Versus Double-Blind Placebo in a Randomized Controlled Trial in Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: There is growing evidence that open-label placebo (OLP) may be an efficacious treatment of chronic and functional conditions. However, patient-level predictors of response to OLP have not been clearly identified. The aim of this study is to evaluate the psychological predictors of response to OLP and to compare this to double-blind placebo (DBP) and no-pill control (NPC). METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of data collected in a 6-week randomized controlled trial evaluating placebo effects in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The primary outcome was change in IBS severity. Hierarchical linear regression identified predictors of placebo response in general and compared them between those randomized to OLP, DBP, and NPC. Predictor variables included personality traits, generalized anxiety, depression, visceral sensitivity (a measure of symptom-specific anxiety), and pain catastrophizing. RESULTS: A total of 210 participants (mean age = 42.3 years, 73.3% female) were included. Regression models revealed that visceral sensitivity was a predictor of response to OLP and NPC but not DBP. Interestingly, the effects were opposite, with high visceral sensitivity predicting less improvement in NPC and more improvement in OLP. Pain catastrophizing was a negative predictor of response to OLP (i.e., high pain catastrophizing was associated with less improvement in OLP). Neither visceral sensitivity nor pain catastrophizing played a significant role for response to DBP. CONCLUSIONS: IBS participants who score low on the Pain Catastrophizing Scale but high on the Visceral Sensitivity Index seem to benefit particularly from OLP. Our study suggests that different psychological mechanisms may be involved in DBP and OLP interventions.

Music-Induced Analgesia in Healthy Participants Is Associated With Expected Pain Levels but Not Opioid or Dopamine-Dependent Mechanisms.

Music interventions accommodate the profound need for non-pharmacological pain treatment. The analgesic effect of listening to music has been widely demonstrated across studies. Yet, the specific mechanisms of action have still to be elucidated. Although the endogenous opioid and dopamine systems have been suggested to play an important role, a direct link has not been established. In addition, the involvement of placebo mechanisms is likely while largely unexplored. We examined the analgesic effect of music in healthy participants (n = 48) using a 3 × 3 within-subjects design with pharmacological manipulations and a matched, auditory control for music. Participants were exposed to thermal pain stimuli while listening to three auditory excerpts: music (active condition), nature sound (matched, auditory contextual condition), and noise (neutral control condition). The participants rated their expected and perceived pain levels in relation to each of the auditory excerpts. To investigate the involvement of the endogenous opioid and dopamine systems, the test session was performed three times on separate days featuring a double-blind randomized oral administration of naltrexone (opioid antagonist), haloperidol (dopamine antagonist), and an inactive agent (control). Our results support an analgesic effect of music. Contrary to current hypotheses, neither of the antagonists attenuated the effect of music. Yet, the participants' expectations for pain relief predicted their perceived pain levels during the auditory excerpts-even when controlling for a gradual learning effect. In conclusion, we demonstrate that the analgesic effect of music is at least partially mediated by expectations of an analgesic effect-a core mechanism in placebo effects-but not by opioid and dopamine-dependent mechanisms. Clinical Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT03410563.

Are They Side Effects? Extraintestinal Symptoms Reported During Clinical Trials of Irritable Bowel Syndrome May Be More Severe at Baseline.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Many of the reported adverse events in clinical trials of irritable bowel syndrome are extraintestinal symptoms, which typically are assessed by open-ended questions during the trial and not at baseline. This may lead to misattribution of some pre-existing symptoms as side effects to the treatment. METHODS: The current study analyzed data from a 6-week clinical trial of irritable bowel syndrome. Participants were randomized to receive double-blind peppermint oil, double-blind placebo, or treatment as usual. Extraintestinal symptoms were assessed at baseline and at the end of the study. RESULTS: This analysis included 173 participants (30 received double-blind peppermint oil, 72 received treatment as usual, and 71 received double-blind placebo). At baseline, each group reported approximately 5 extraintestinal symptoms per participant. The number of symptoms per participant decreased to an average of 3 by the end-of-study visit, and this change was statistically significant in all groups (P < .001 for each group). When evaluating individual extraintestinal symptoms, the majority of participants did not report new/worse symptoms. In fact, between the baseline assessment and the final assessment, the average symptom severity decreased significantly in all 3 groups (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that participants with irritable bowel syndrome often experience extraintestinal symptoms at baseline and that these symptoms generally improve in severity over the course of a clinical trial, regardless of the treatment arm. Systematic assessment of extraintestinal symptoms at the beginning of a clinical trial is necessary to determine more definitively whether these symptoms may be considered an adverse event attributable to a study medication.

Patient-clinician brain concordance underlies causal dynamics in nonverbal communication and negative affective expressivity.

Patient-clinician concordance in behavior and brain activity has been proposed as a potential key mediator of mutual empathy and clinical rapport in the therapeutic encounter. However, the specific elements of patient-clinician communication that may support brain-to-brain concordance and therapeutic alliance are unknown. Here, we investigated how pain-related, directional facial communication between patients and clinicians is associated with brain-to-brain concordance. Patient-clinician dyads interacted in a pain-treatment context, during synchronous assessment of brain activity (fMRI hyperscanning) and online video transfer, enabling face-to-face social interaction. In-scanner videos were used for automated individual facial action unit (AU) time-series extraction. First, an interpretable machine-learning classifier of patients' facial expressions, from an independent fMRI experiment, significantly distinguished moderately painful leg pressure from innocuous pressure stimuli. Next, we estimated neural-network causality of patient-to-clinician directional information flow of facial expressions during clinician-initiated treatment of patients' evoked pain. We identified a leader-follower relationship in which patients predominantly led the facial communication while clinicians responded to patients' expressions. Finally, analyses of dynamic brain-to-brain concordance showed that patients' mid/posterior insular concordance with the clinicians' anterior insula cortex, a region identified in previously published data from this study1, was associated with therapeutic alliance, and self-reported and objective (patient-to-clinician-directed causal influence) markers of negative-affect expressivity. These results suggest a role of patient-clinician concordance of the insula, a social-mirroring and salience-processing brain node, in mediating directional dynamics of pain-directed facial communication during therapeutic encounters.

Sharing clinical notes, and placebo and nocebo effects: Can documentation affect patient health?

This paper connects findings from the field of placebo studies with research into patients' interactions with their clinician's visit notes, housed in their electronic health records. We propose specific hypotheses about how features of clinicians' written notes might trigger mechanisms of placebo and nocebo effects to elicit positive or adverse health effects among patients. Bridging placebo studies with (a) survey data assaying patient and clinician experiences with portals and (b) randomized controlled trials provides preliminary support for our hypotheses. We conclude with actionable proposals for testing our understanding of the health effects of access to visit notes.

Tricyclic antidepressants versus 'active placebo', placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is a common psychiatric disorder causing great burden on patients and societies. Tricyclic antidepressants are frequently used worldwide to treat patients with major depressive disorder. It has repeatedly been shown that tricyclic antidepressants reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the effect is small and of questionable clinical importance. Moreover, the beneficial and harmful effects of all types of tricyclic antidepressants have not previously been systematically assessed. Therefore, we aim to investigate the beneficial and harmful effects of tricyclic antidepressants versus 'active placebo', placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. METHODS: This is a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis that will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols, bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2, our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control random errors and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases and trial registers, such as CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to 12 May 2021. Clinical study reports will be applied for from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results from the literature searches, extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing tricyclic antidepressants with 'active placebo', placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following interventions will be assessed: amineptine, amitriptyline, amoxapine, butriptyline, cianopramine, clomipramine, desipramine, demexiptiline, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, imipramine, iprindole, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, protriptyline, tianeptine, trimipramine and quinupramine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide-attempts and non-serious adverse events. If feasible, we will assess the intervention effects using random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. DISCUSSION: Tricyclic antidepressants are recommended by clinical guidelines and frequently used worldwide in the treatment of major depressive disorder. There is a need for a thorough systematic review to provide the necessary background for weighing the benefits against the harms. This review will ultimately inform best practice in the treatment of major depressive disorder. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021226161 .