Placebo nonresponders: An experimental investigation on their unreliability over time

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2025-01-11 DOI:10.1016/j.jpain.2025.104777
Fabrizio Benedetti , Wilma Thoen , Aziz Shaibani , Claudia Arduino
{"title":"Placebo nonresponders: An experimental investigation on their unreliability over time","authors":"Fabrizio Benedetti ,&nbsp;Wilma Thoen ,&nbsp;Aziz Shaibani ,&nbsp;Claudia Arduino","doi":"10.1016/j.jpain.2025.104777","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In order to disentangle the effects of drugs from placebo responses, several approaches have been used, such as a placebo run-in phase in which only placebo nonresponders, or poor responders, are considered for further randomization to either placebo or active treatment. This study is aimed at investigating the variability of placebo nonresponders obtained through the classical placebo run-in paradigm (group RUN) and through mismatch conditioning (group MIS), as done in our previous study. To do this, we simulated a real clinical trial in the laboratory, in which the placebo responders of both groups were discarded and the remaining nonresponders of both groups RUN and MIS were randomized to either continuing on placebo (groups RUN-P and MIS-P, respectively) or receiving topical 0.5% lidocaine (groups RUN-L and MIS-L, respectively) applied to the skin. By measuring pain thresholds, we found that the placebo nonresponders selected on the first day of the experiment showed different responses on the following day in both group RUN and MIS. This led to no significant differences between placebo and lidocaine in both groups. Although this is an experimental laboratory situation far from the clinical trial setting, these findings show that placebo nonresponders are not necessarily constant over time, both when a placebo run-in protocol is used and when nonresponders are created in the laboratory. This questions the reliability of selecting placebo nonresponders as a methodological approach in clinical research. Therefore, we suggest reconsidering the validity and usefulness of placebo run-in protocols.</div></div><div><h3>Perspective</h3><div>Placebo nonresponders are sometime selected for further randomization to either placebo or active treatment. In this experimental study, which is a laboratory simulation of a clinical trial, we found that placebo nonresponders vary from day to day, thus questioning their validity as a methodological approach in clinical research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51095,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain","volume":"28 ","pages":"Article 104777"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526590025000033","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In order to disentangle the effects of drugs from placebo responses, several approaches have been used, such as a placebo run-in phase in which only placebo nonresponders, or poor responders, are considered for further randomization to either placebo or active treatment. This study is aimed at investigating the variability of placebo nonresponders obtained through the classical placebo run-in paradigm (group RUN) and through mismatch conditioning (group MIS), as done in our previous study. To do this, we simulated a real clinical trial in the laboratory, in which the placebo responders of both groups were discarded and the remaining nonresponders of both groups RUN and MIS were randomized to either continuing on placebo (groups RUN-P and MIS-P, respectively) or receiving topical 0.5% lidocaine (groups RUN-L and MIS-L, respectively) applied to the skin. By measuring pain thresholds, we found that the placebo nonresponders selected on the first day of the experiment showed different responses on the following day in both group RUN and MIS. This led to no significant differences between placebo and lidocaine in both groups. Although this is an experimental laboratory situation far from the clinical trial setting, these findings show that placebo nonresponders are not necessarily constant over time, both when a placebo run-in protocol is used and when nonresponders are created in the laboratory. This questions the reliability of selecting placebo nonresponders as a methodological approach in clinical research. Therefore, we suggest reconsidering the validity and usefulness of placebo run-in protocols.

Perspective

Placebo nonresponders are sometime selected for further randomization to either placebo or active treatment. In this experimental study, which is a laboratory simulation of a clinical trial, we found that placebo nonresponders vary from day to day, thus questioning their validity as a methodological approach in clinical research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
安慰剂无应答者:一项随时间推移的不可靠性实验研究。
为了将药物效应与安慰剂反应区分开来,已经使用了几种方法,例如安慰剂磨合期,其中只有安慰剂无反应或反应差的患者被考虑进一步随机分配到安慰剂或积极治疗中。本研究旨在调查通过经典安慰剂磨合范式(RUN组)和错配条件反射(MIS组)获得的安慰剂无应答者的可变性,正如我们之前的研究所做的那样。为此,我们在实验室模拟了一项真实的临床试验,其中两组的安慰剂应答者都被丢弃,其余的无应答者被随机分为两组,要么继续服用安慰剂(分别为RUN- p组和MIS- p组),要么接受局部0.5%利多卡因(分别为RUN- l组和MIS- l组)涂抹在皮肤上。通过测量疼痛阈值,我们发现在实验第一天选择的安慰剂无反应者在第二天在RUN组和MIS组中表现出不同的反应。这导致两组安慰剂和利多卡因之间没有显著差异。虽然这是一个远离临床试验环境的实验实验室情况,但这些发现表明,安慰剂无反应并不一定会随着时间的推移而保持不变,无论是在使用安慰剂磨合方案时还是在实验室中创建无反应时。这就质疑了在临床研究中选择安慰剂无反应的方法的可靠性。因此,我们建议重新考虑安慰剂磨合方案的有效性和有用性。观点:安慰剂无应答者有时被选择进一步随机分组,接受安慰剂或积极治疗。在这项实验研究中,这是一个临床试验的实验室模拟,我们发现安慰剂无反应者每天都在变化,因此质疑其作为临床研究方法的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Pain
Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
7.50%
发文量
441
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pain publishes original articles related to all aspects of pain, including clinical and basic research, patient care, education, and health policy. Articles selected for publication in the Journal are most commonly reports of original clinical research or reports of original basic research. In addition, invited critical reviews, including meta analyses of drugs for pain management, invited commentaries on reviews, and exceptional case studies are published in the Journal. The mission of the Journal is to improve the care of patients in pain by providing a forum for clinical researchers, basic scientists, clinicians, and other health professionals to publish original research.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Table of Contents Masthead Cannabidiol reduces neuropathic pain and cognitive impairments through activation of spinal PPARγ. Individual differences in response to repeated painful stimulation: habituation, sensitization, and nocebo effects.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1