Literature DB >> 11406341

Response expectancies in placebo analgesia and their clinical relevance.

Antonella Pollo1, Martina Amanzio, Anna Arslanian, Caterina Casadio, Giuliano Maggi, Fabrizio Benedetti.   

Abstract

Response expectancies have been proposed as the major determinant of placebo effects. Here we report that different expectations produce different analgesic effects which in turn can be harnessed in clinical practice. Thoracotomized patients were treated with buprenorphine on request for 3 consecutive days, together with a basal intravenous infusion of saline solution. However, the symbolic meaning of this basal infusion was changed in three different groups of patients. The first group was told nothing about any analgesic effect (natural history). The second group was told that the basal infusion was either a powerful painkiller or a placebo (classic double-blind administration). The third group was told that the basal infusion was a potent painkiller (deceptive administration). Therefore, whereas the analgesic treatment was exactly the same in the three groups, the verbal instructions about the basal infusion differed. The placebo effect of the saline basal infusion was measured by recording the doses of buprenorphine requested over the three-days treatment. We found that the double-blind group showed a reduction of buprenorphine requests compared to the natural history group. However, this reduction was even larger in the deceptive administration group. Overall, after 3 days of placebo infusion, the first group received 11.55 mg of buprenorphine, the second group 9.15 mg, and the third group 7.65 mg. Despite these dose differences, analgesia was the same in the three groups. These results indicate that different verbal instructions about certain and uncertain expectations of analgesia produce different placebo analgesic effects, which in turn trigger a dramatic change of behaviour leading to a significant reduction of opioid intake.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11406341     DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00296-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain        ISSN: 0304-3959            Impact factor:   6.961


  101 in total

Review 1.  New Developments in the Prophylactic Drug Treatment of Pediatric Migraine: What Is New in 2017 and Where Does It Leave Us?

Authors:  Joanne Kacperski; Allyson Bazarsky
Journal:  Curr Pain Headache Rep       Date:  2017-08

2.  A survey of symptoms and treatment of fibromyalgia.

Authors:  Robert M Bennett
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 4.592

3.  Placebo response to manual therapy: something out of nothing?

Authors:  Joel E Bialosky; Mark D Bishop; Steven Z George; Michael E Robinson
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2011-02

4.  Preventing motor training through nocebo suggestions.

Authors:  Antonella Pollo; Elisa Carlino; Lene Vase; Fabrizio Benedetti
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2012-03-13       Impact factor: 3.078

Review 5.  [Mechanisms of endogenous pain modulation illustrated by placebo analgesia : functional imaging findings].

Authors:  U Bingel
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.107

6.  Individual expectation: an overlooked, but pertinent, factor in the treatment of individuals experiencing musculoskeletal pain.

Authors:  Joel E Bialosky; Mark D Bishop; Joshua A Cleland
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2010-06-30

7.  Placebo Analgesia - Understanding the Mechanisms and Implications for Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Damien G Finniss; Michael K Nicholas; Fabrizio Benedetti
Journal:  Rev Pain       Date:  2009-10

8.  Expectations and placebo response: a laboratory investigation into the role of somatic focus.

Authors:  Andrew L Geers; Suzanne G Helfer; Paul E Weiland; Kristin Kosbab
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2005-12-23

9.  Placebo effects in laser-evoked pain potentials.

Authors:  Tor D Wager; Dagfinn Matre; Kenneth L Casey
Journal:  Brain Behav Immun       Date:  2006-03-29       Impact factor: 7.217

10.  The impact of psychological factors on placebo responses in a randomized controlled trial comparing sham device to dummy pill.

Authors:  Suzanne M Bertisch; Anna R T Legedza; Russell S Phillips; Roger B Davis; William B Stason; Rose H Goldman; Ted J Kaptchuk
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.431

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.